Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Landmark Tree 46A Cook topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends landmarking large Cook Street pine after months of review
Summary
After extended public testimony and a closed-session attorney briefing, the Land Use and Transportation Committee voted unanimously to forward a positive committee recommendation for landmark designation of the Norfolk Island/hybrid pine at 46A Cook Street to the full Board, citing rarity, ecological and cultural value; the property owner objected, saying designation could impede future development.
The Land Use and Transportation Committee voted unanimously to forward a nomination to landmark a large Norfolk Island/hybrid pine at 46A Cook Street to the full Board, after hearing staff presentations, extensive public testimony and a brief closed-session attorney consultation.
Mei Ling Hui, Urban Forest Coordinator, outlined the landmark-tree nomination process and the Urban Forestry Council’s review. She told the committee the nomination had advanced to the Board following mixed committee recommendations and a later 9–2 vote in favor by the Urban Forestry Council. Staff evaluation highlighted four criteria: rarity, physical attributes, environmental benefits and cultural support. The property owner had not granted permission for on-site evaluation; staff and council viewed the tree from adjacent property and the public right-of-way.
Neighbors, scientists and community members provided extended testimony in favor of landmarking. Professor Ravinder Seagal (read at the hearing and later present) described research showing the ecological importance of large old urban trees for wildlife and biodiversity; other neighbors called the tree a local landmark with cultural and aesthetic significance. Supporters repeatedly referenced the Urban Forestry Council’s 9–2 recommendation in March.
Property owner Dale Rogers spoke in opposition, saying the tree sits in the rear yard and that landmarking would "absolutely prevent the creation of any new housing on this lot," calling the designation a prejudice to his private-property rights. Committee members pressed for specifics about any concrete development plans, and planning counsel and other staff said a more detailed memorandum would be required to determine whether future development would be feasible or blocked by the designation.
Because the item raised questions of anticipated litigation, the committee moved into closed session to consult the City Attorney; on reconvening the committee voted unanimously not to disclose the closed-session discussion. Supervisors then debated the substantive criteria. Supervisor Scott Weiner said the tree is "remarkable" and met the landmark threshold; he moved to forward the nomination with a positive committee recommendation. Supervisor Peskin and others associated with the motion, which passed unanimously and will be issued as a committee report to the full Board.
The nomination will next be considered by the full Board of Supervisors; staff indicated further planning and legal analysis may be prepared to address questions raised about development impacts and the property owner’s concerns.
