This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Government
Municipalities
Mandamus Relief

SF Urban Forest Coalition v. City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Director of Planning, San Francisco Zoning Administrator, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Published: Mar. 26, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 3, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CPF-10-510658 Bench Decision –  Equitable Settlement

Court

San Francisco Superior


Attorneys

Petitioner

Martin L. Fineman
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)

Sanjay M. Nangia
(Davis, Wright & Tremaine LLP)


Respondent

Andrea Ruiz-Esquide

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Kristen A. Jensen
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Robb W. Kapla
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Facts

SF Urban Forest Coalition filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Planning Dept., San Francisco Director of Planning, and San Francisco Zoning Administrator, seeking to have the parties implement certain sections of the Planning Code.

Contentions

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS:
Petitioner contended that the respondents' Planning Department has, for many years, failed to enforce street-tree planting laws in San Francisco. San Francisco has one of the most meager tree canopies of any large city in the U.S. Petitioner argued that these laws were intended to address that need, requiring applicants for many construction permits, from new buildings to home renovations, to plant one or more street trees (or pay an "in-lieu" fee to plant one elsewhere). One estimate found that respondents' failures may have resulted in the loss of about 75,000 trees. This equates to over $100 million in fees that were not collected. In response to this suit, petitioner claimed, the Planning Department created an illusory new procedure to fix the problem. However, the procedure was not properly implemented. Petitioner claimed that the Department's training materials contained a sarcastic remark from a senior official that undermined the procedure's effectiveness. Petitioner amended its complaint to require correction of the new procedure.

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS:
Respondents denied the allegations and asserted various affirmative defenses.

Result

The parties entered into a settlement. As part of the settlement, respondents agreed to correct its procedure for enforcement of the street-tree planting laws, review 720 previously-issued permits that are believed to be out of compliance, and take corrective action, if necessary. Respondents also agreed to make public and enhance its electronic permit database to help the public track compliance, and commence enforcement proceedings on a property that is alleged to have been out of compliance since 2005.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Aug. 30, 2010.


#88956

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390