Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    August 31, 2013 3:30am-4:01am PDT

3:30 am
i'll report after but if anyone else is interested given the interest ton sequa in the last few months >> yesterday's chronicle had an article on the photographs which were taken during the construction of the bay bridge in 1935 and 1936. i'm familiar with the photographs their staerlg. if you go during the daytime i can go safely you can take bart >> the subcommittee met on
3:31 am
june 27th and we'll be meeting on july 31st. >> thank you any other questions or comments from commissioner. seeing none, we'll close that item >> commissioners that will place you under items for continuance case 206 l at fillmore street consideration to spaekd the landmark dedication. any member of the public wish to speak on this item and a seeing none, i'll bring it to the commission phenomenon consideration of continuance >> i move to continue to august 21st. on that motion to continue
3:32 am
(calling names) so move forward commissioners that passes 7 to zero and places you under your regular claurnd. the mini park presentation >> i'll be using tour overhead. >> govern tim at the request of the commission we invited rec park to present a short overview of the removing of the redwood trees from the mini park. we're happy to continue the defendant and i wanted to insure you we were in constant
3:33 am
communication >> thanks i'm the director of operations of the recreation and park department. i'll be making the informational prengs presentation this afternoon. i'll be using overhead photos to illustrate my presentation. this is about cologne row mini park. it's one of our - there we go. (laughter) all right. i think we're all talking about the same thing now. the cologne row mini park is one of our 1 hundred and 20 parks within the landmark district. the park itself is a little bit
3:34 am
over one 10th of an acre. it's a narrow alleyway that connects the bush streets for that within the mini park is has a brick walkway it front a number of historic cottages. and also contains a drinking foundation. the city's sewer line runs down the mid of this narrow parcel. i want to talk about removing the wood trees and replacing them. the history is in 1991 the landmark district was devastated and the cottage right now residents approached us to
3:35 am
replace the trees with redwood. at that time the department advised against planting the redwood because the species was too large for this sunset parcel and the trees would out grow the park and pose serious threats to the community. after a considerable process the department agreed for accident tree planting to go ahead. they were 75 trees that were proposed along the lot line. there were existing a large tree
3:36 am
which already opted a park by dropping the large branches a significant drop of tree litter in the form of seeds and pods that required regular clean up and a pro-announced lean of the trunk. the cottage row residents expressed their regret of having planned the trees as noticed by the department and size of appropriateness had proven to be true. we proposed a remove of coast woods and there were also concerns to keep the trees in
3:37 am
place and request the department wait 5 to 10 years to see how the trees would progress so it was postponed. we now move ahead and the department was again approached over the same issue. several meetings have been discussions and what actions to be taken. a high degree of consensus has been reached and now those 6 trees must be removed and other sprees planned in their place. here's the summary. again, this picture is from sutter street. this tree right here is the red flowering tree.
3:38 am
here's a closer shot from the sidewalk. this tree it's a very large tree situated a top the wall from the sutter street stair. this has a large trunk base about 3 feet in diameter. the trunk has significant tree wounds and scarring from dropped brandishes that contain rot and decan i. it's situated above the underground sewer lines and shows it's roots have compromised the sewer lines.
3:39 am
those seedpods litter the sidewalk making a slip and fall harasses. it has a significant lean. here's another shot. given the weight of the tree this will cause tree failure and it will fall in the direction toward the adjacent lot and out across sufrt street and rip open the sewer line. those are the issues with the red flower and gum tree. this is what we call that redwood number one it's adjacent to the tree i just described. this redwood is situated underneath the canopy which has
3:40 am
significantly stupidity it's growth. it's limbs overhang the stair in the adjacent property as you see here. coast redwoods it through 5 which move northward along the lot line on the west have grown vigorously and tower over the resident roofline. here's a better shot. you can see the size of it right there with the roofline being be there. you you can see you get a feeling for size anyway of the trees. their planned on the mini lot line which are adjacent to the private property and
3:41 am
consequentially they peer over the rooflines. you can see right there the root systems have uplifted the walkway and a building foundation next door. here we go a shot at the looking at the trees from the resident property wall right there and with the tops of those trees above the roofs they present greater sale areas. their bound to have their tops blown out which means their
3:42 am
toppings tops break off they can drop 20 feet or more from the tops and a can create enormous damage and injury. looking at ahead those are the issues we see for the trees. were the trees to remain there redwoods two through 5 will continue to grow in height and create additional issues the city would be like this in each case. it will further uplift the adjacent pathway and compromises the foupgz.
3:43 am
you can see when you look at let me receive back to this is my opening photograph of the mini park. this large tree right here is a redwood. it's a towering much larger and older then the ones we have on the parkland. it's a privately held in the next property owner it's his redwood and this redwood - here's a color so the o shot to give you an idea of how large it is. this redwood has a large burrow coming out of the fence and this burrow is the roots that extends under the pathway here's a shot
3:44 am
that is lifting up the brick packet. here's is a shot looking at sufrt street you can see the breakage of the pathway. so when i talk about the lift this is what i've referring to. the root systems will infill trait the pathway that could damage the adjacent property and the city will be responsible. with the underscore tree the following outcomes have the reasonable predictability. this is from the wood rot that is compromising the trees core structure will cause tree failure. it will fall in the direction of
3:45 am
lean and fall across the sidewalk into sutter street and pedestrians could be in danger. it could rip out the sewer line and the city will be liable for all those damages and injuries. consequentially those being the issues, however, we don't wish to leave this without suitable tree mravnt so we're going to gather input from the neighbors and public on the tree placating plan we anticipate will include the following factors. selecting species that will compliment the area and that have the right size growth and
3:46 am
the species that compliment the park landscape. with that. that concludes my prepared racks i'll be happy to answer any questions from my presentation >> thank you. commissioners do we have any questions and a yes, thank you. i'd be interested to know what the schedule is for the process it sounds good >> once we complete it informational project we'll look at the forestry work scheduled and look at it reposting the trees with a thirty day notice and undertaking this within 3 ms. >> thank you very much. can you tell me a little bit more about your community process. i frequently visit this park and
3:47 am
i was never informed of any kind community process about the remove of those trees. i'm one of the people who asked mr. frye to give a presentation. i talked about the community process. what kind of community process is available to the residents so we had notices about the remove of trees to provide some process to the residents 3 live there >> i'll talk about it in two forms. i mentioned 2003 we did a process that was published community meetings and was published in the newspaper of the 2003 process. the one we've undertaken over the last several months
3:48 am
basically was precipitated by our postings of the remove and which gave notice of who you should contact if you have concerns about the postings. so the process was a little bit more ad hoc and less formal then posted meetings. but we would meet with the cottage row residents and pass e-mail around regarding in terms of even if publishing the pros and cons and the rationale and receiving the comments back. so i do want to be clear there were not advertised and postings beatings for this month recent effort by as the the reefforttion that will be posted meetings and a
3:49 am
way to have the people's idea for replacement species >> i would encourage you to be as board as possible with your notification. a that's the only green space we have along sutter street. you can go up the hill but most folks don't want to make that trek. just out of the curiosity when they were encouraged to plant those redwoods and many voted against this does park and rec have some kind of safety policy that says those things will happen even though it's of interest to you as a community
3:50 am
happens in it if you knew it would cause serious litigation why? >> this was back in 1993 i hate the response i'm giving you but we don't have a written policy on this. we rely on our opinions. we've got talents in the department. i can't account for back in 1993 our staff at the time gave the go ahead with the only advise that those be for species choices and i actually can't
3:51 am
comment further. now we won't make this advise but withhold the approval and so there's something in place right now >> that's correct. >> is it possible for the landmark to extend to this area? >> how do those things happen. >> tim frye department staff. it could occur the commission would have to make a decision in opening up the designation and including other boundaries of the designation to address this issue. as you may recall i believe it was one supervisor a number of years ago reopened this designation to allow for more oversight of park future within the park.
3:52 am
when we reintroduced the amendment a number of years ago we just focused on basic street furniture and didn't extend to any other things. they could then be a final vote by the board of supervisors on whether or not to include that as part of the designation >> xhirths any other questions for mr. kern seeing none, we'll open it up for public comment. i have one speaker card. marvin. >> i've lived adjacent to the park for approximately thirty years. i've taken it upon myself to do
3:53 am
a historic study from 1875 and beyond. i also was regretable part of the neighborhood so i'll be happy to answer all the questions in the temp about the site. i support of the remove of the redwoods. i think that just on the merits of the presentation we've just heard obviously. but things have gone back and forth with the contingent working with the department we've had clean up crews and at this time we were a volunteer group the park just delivered the trees and we planned them so guilty as charged.
3:54 am
we had a landscape architect in the neighborhood who was working pro-beyond for us and came up with this beautiful plan. i think this is not my expertise they looked good for a couple of years. it was a mistake an accident that's how we got into this situation. prior to this we got everybody and it was fairly broadly invited in the meeting we got a proposal to get a grant which we didn't get. but we had 20 or thirty people getting together notes and
3:55 am
everything. so everybody gave their opinions but after that we didn't get the grant and some of us got together to try to get the redwoods removed. realistically you've got to start with the redwood trees are gone. so i wholeheartedly support the remove of the trees and would be happy to answer any questions on the history of the park >> thank you. does any other member of the public wish to speak on this item? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm rose. i don't speak for the forestry board but i hold a seat.
3:56 am
we haven't had a presentation from the effort commission. but nonetheless i'd like to say a few things about the redwood trees. i can see what the problems would be because they have shallow roots and they go through the sewer line. but those trees are in the chapter code 16 which are 16 inches and their within the public right-of-way so anything that's being planned there i'd like to see the historic use of those trees. i've gone back to the 1900s as you probably already, you know, it was used by japanese immigrants because they were not lout to hold land and most of
3:57 am
the folks then were japanese immigrants they grew there can be age and other things. so thank you very much >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please hi katherine howard i'm up here as co- latter damage. however, last time at the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods there was a presentation by the forestry alliance and they talked about how the canopy is diminished in the city and county of san francisco. the effort alliance said the
3:58 am
park is more interested in removing trees than protecting them. i don't know. and the trees are given a bad rap about falling brandishes. my comments are general but i want to give you some hints about things to think about when people want to remove trees one is the sewer line if the sewer line is sealed the roots don't know they're there. so if they get into the pipelines that's a problem. sometimes people say there's all this vegetation near the park the park was created so you
3:59 am
can't see the traffic. trees on the roofline gosh that sound like a good idea who wants trees that you can see the above everything. one thing not mentioned is proen if a tree is heavy leaning it could be prone. there doesn't seem like there's much effort to mitigate that. and the last one is the liability issue. fblg we don't want people injured but when it comes to liability we self-insure for everything in the city and i
4:00 am
think our trees are worth the financial liability. if we try to protect against every single thing we're going to have a lot of concrete and not a nice place to live >> any other speakers? >> hello, i'm mary king and i live in lambert and was part of the planting. we made a big mistake on the redwoods. i remember one of the department members said i without the possibility of parole plant those trees there. the one tree i was successful was to get a buff japanese maple planned. i would ask we continue to hav