Rec and Park proposes removing six trees at Cottage Row Mini Park; neighbors divided

Recreation and Park Department Director of Operations Dennis Curran told the Historic Preservation Commission the department plans to remove six trees from Cottage Row Mini Park because their size and root systems now pose risks to adjacent residences, the park brick pathway and an underground sewer line. "The department plans to remove these 6 trees for the rationale that I just stated," Curran said, explaining that uplifted roots have already compromised the sewer and that towering crowns increase the risk of wind‑related failure.

Curran described the park as "a little over one‑tenth of an acre" and traced the issue back to a 1993 neighborhood planting of coast redwoods, which staff and later residents have decided are inappropriate for the parcel’s scale. He detailed observable damages — a tree with a three‑foot trunk base and structural wounds, seed pods littering sidewalks, uplifted brick pathways and tree lean toward adjacent property — and said that when roots intrude on sewer infrastructure the city could become liable for resulting damage.

Speaking during public comment, several long‑time neighbors supported removal. Marvin Lambert, who said he has lived adjacent to the park for about 30 years, told commissioners that the neighborhood once made a mistaken choice in planting redwoods and now supports removal. "We were a volunteer group. The park just delivered the trees, and we planted them," Lambert said, describing past neighborhood efforts. Other commenters urged the city to ensure a broad, well‑publicized replanting process that considers culturally appropriate and smaller species such as Japanese maples.

Department staff said the process would include posting the trees for 30 days and undertaking removals "probably within two months" after that posting, followed by a formally noticed community process to select replacement species. Curran emphasized the department does not intend to leave the mini park without suitable replacement plantings and outlined criteria including appropriate mature size, compatibility with the Nihonmachi setting and complementing existing plant palettes.

The presentation was informational only; no formal action was taken. The commission and members of the public asked follow‑up questions about the scope of prior outreach, the department’s arboricultural policies and whether alternatives (pruning, root barriers, sewer repairs) had been fully considered. Staff said a larger formal reforestation outreach with posted meetings and translators for Chinese speakers will follow.

What happens next: staff will post notices and proceed with the public reforestation planning; a timeline given at the hearing suggested removals could begin about two months after the 30‑day posting, subject to scheduling with Urban Forestry work plans.