Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name: Dan Kida
Date of evaluation: March 19. 2014
Scientific name: Sequoia gganteuni
Common name: Giant Sequoia
Street address: 3066 Market St. San Francisco
Cross streets: Hattie St, Merrit St
Rarity
_Yes
Partially
No
Rarity:
Rare
X Uncommon
Common
Unusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Comment: Some found in GG Park but not a common residential tree.
Physical Attributes
Yes
Partially
Other
No
Size:
X Large
Medium
Small
Notable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.
Comment:
Age:
Yes X_No
Significantly advanced age for the species.
Comment: Relative to life span of this species. this appears to be a young specimen
Distinguished form:
X Yes
No
Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.
Describe: recent trimming of lower limbs has compromised this to a small degree
Tree condition:
X Good
Poor
Hazard
Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazard
Describe: Has a significant lean but no uprooting. Tree appears to be in good health.
Page]
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Historical
Yes
Partially X No
None apparent
Yes
Historical Association:
Related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.
Describe nature of appreciation: Could not find any references
X Unknown
Yes
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage: I’m unaware of any media coverage
Environmental
Yes
No
Partially
No
Prominent landscape feature: X Yes
feature.
striking
and
outstanding
natural
A
Describe, attach photo if possible: tree has grown in a unique way and noticeable from street and a few
blocks away. Doesn’t appear to define neighborhood.
Moderate
Low tree density:
X Low
Tree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.
Describe:
High
X No
Yes
Interdependent group of trees:
This tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact on
adjacent trees.
Describe:
X Yes
Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way:
High visibility and/or accessibility’ from public property.
No
Describe:
XNo
Yes
High traffic area:
Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has a
potential traffic calming effect.
Describe: Backyard
X No
Yes
Important wildlife habitat:
Species has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, or
nesting to specific known wildlife individuals. It’s likely that birds and other urban wildlife utilize
this tree though I couldn’t see any activity the day of visit. No visible nests in tree noticed.
Erosion control:
Tree prevents soil erosion.
Describe:
Yes
X No
Page 2
Urban
3
Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation
Form and
Criteria
X Yes
No
Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.
Describe: Likely that this tree shields adjacent properties from wind and noise coming from busy
street
Wind or sound barrier:
Cultural
XYes
Partially
No
X Yes
None apparent
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
Describe: Letter of support from neighborhood association, adjacent neighbors, and SF supervisor.
Tree does appear to mean a lot to folks in neighborhood.
Neighborhood appreciation:
Yes
X None apparent
Particular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.
Describe nature of appreciation:
Cultural appreciation:
X Yes
No
Tree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.
Describe contribution: Unique tree to neighborhood.
Planting contributes to neighborhood character:
in a publication or other media:
X Unknown
Yes
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage:
Profiled
X Yes
No
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible: Not prominent to SF but to the immediate neighborhood.
Prominent landscape feature:
Additional comments
Page 3
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Page 4
4
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name:
Swae___________________________________________________
Date of evaluation:
3/19/14
Scientific name:
Seguoiadendron Giganteum
Common name:
Giant Sequoia
Street address:
3066 Market Street
Cross streets:
Rarity
X_ Yes _X_ Partially
No
Rarity:
Rare
_X_Uncomrnon
Common
Other
Unusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Comment:
This tree species is found only within California (endemic, native), restricted by its natural habitat range to about
75 groves scattered over a 260-mile belt extending along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada in central
California (USDA Forest Service). Giant Sequoias are very uncommon in San Francisco. There is little
information about the presence of these trees on private property but they are not widely planted in the city.
According to the Recreation & Park Department (2014), the only know Giant Sequoias on parkland are located
at:
• Golden Gate Park: One (1) Liberty Tree planted by the Daughters of the American Revolution in
1894 located at the west corner of Conservatory Valley.
• Golden Gate Park: One (1) specimen at the SF Botanical Garden.
• Garfield Square Park (Mission District): Two (2) Giant Sequoias.
Cultural
Yes
Partially
No
Neighborhood appreciation:
_X_ Yes
None apparent
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
Describe:
Strong neighborhood support for tree and amenity it provides in the backyard corridor shared by multiple
properties (Corbett Heights Neighbors, Castro/Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association).
Page 1
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name: Malcolm Hillan
Date of evaluation: March 19, 2014
Scientific name: Sequoiadendron giganteum
Common name: Sierra Redwood
Street address: 3066 Market Street
Cross streets: Hattie, Merritt
Rarity
Yes
Partially _x_ No
Rarity:
Rare
_x_Uncomrnon
_x_Common
Unusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Other
Comment: _In San Francisco the tree is uncommon, especially on private property, because of its
size. It is better represented in public spaces. (e.g. Garfield Park) It has been widely planted in other
regions due to its reputation as the “world’s largest tree” and its beautiful pyramidal form.
Physical Attributes
Yes
Partially _xNo
Size:
Large
x_Mediurn _x_SmalI
Notable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.
Comment:
Small for the species. Medium to small compared to other specimens in San Francisco
(e.g. Garfield Square and the Strybing Arboretum) Large for a SF backyard. Very impressive in that
setting.
Age:
Yes _x_No
Significantly advanced age for the species.
Comment: A youngster for the species.
Distinguished form:
Yes
_x_No
Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.
Describe: Tree has retained its leader, and its basic pyramidal form. Not common in San Francisco
because of the wind. Tree has a distinctive lean which adds interest. Not distinguished.
.
Page 1
.
2
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Tree condition:
_x_Good
Poor
Hazard
Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazard
Describe: The tree appears sound and healthy in every regard. Solidly rooted, and leaning over no
significant targets, I would estimate any hazard to be very low. Very nice tree. Shame to have lost
some of the lower branches.
Historical
Yes
Partially _xNo
Historical Association:
Yes
xNone apparent
Related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.
Describe nature of appreciation: Nothing in the public record that I could find relating to this tree.
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Yes
_x_Unknown
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage: None apparent, that I am aware of.
Environmental
Yes _x_ Partially
Prominent landscape feature:
Yes
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
No
_x_No
Describe, attach photo if possible: Tree is prominent in the back yard, and to the backyard neighbors.
Not a prominent landscape feature due to the isolated backyard location.
Low tree density:
_x_Low
Moderate
Tree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.
High
Describe: The area has a high housing density, and trees of this stature are not very common. Very
nice feature for the garden and neighbors.
Interdependent group of trees:
Yes
_x_No
This tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact on
adjacent trees.
Describe: Not part of an interdependent group.
Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way:
High visibility and/or accessibility from public property.
Yes
xNo
Describe: Tree is not highly visible and is inaccessible because of its backyard location. You can see it
from Market if you are in the right place. Best viewed from the backyard or up Market.
Page 2
3
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
High traffic area:
_x_Yes
No
Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has a
potential traffic calming effect.
Describe: Very high-traffic area. Calming if you are in the back yard. No effect on traffic.
Important wildlife habitat:
Yes
xNo
Species has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, or
nesting to specific known wildlife individuals.
Describe: Not significant in this regard.
Erosion control:
Tree prevents soil erosion.
Yes
_x_No
Describe: Not significant in this regard.
Wind or sound barrier:
xYes
No
Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.
Describe: Tree is sure to reduce wind on leeward side, and I would guess may mitigate some sound
from Market Street in some way. The value of this is marginal. Not a landmarkable quality.
Cultural
Yes _x_ Partially
No
Neighborhood appreciation:
None apparent
_x Yes
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
Describe: Strong support from neighbors, and of personal value to former owners who lived with this
tree. No evidence of neighborhood support prior to threat of removal. (Celebrations, outdoor
gatherings etc.)
Cultural appreciation:
Yes
_x_None apparent
Particular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.
Describe nature of appreciation: No cultural appreciation apparent or on record.
Yes
Planting contributes to neighborhood character:
Tree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.
_x_No
Describe contribution: Tree is too removed from public right of way to help define neighborhood
character. Area not known for Sequoidendron.
Page 3
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
4
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Yes
_x_Unknown
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage: None that I am aware of.
Prominent landscape feature:
Yes
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
_x_No
Describe, attach photo if possible: This was addressed above.
Additional comments
This is a classic misuse of the Landmark Tree Ordinance: an attempt to protect a tree by elevating it to
“Landmark” status when the tree does not possesses lanilmarkable qualities.
Those interested in Iandmarking a worthy specimen of Sequoiadendron giganteum, meaningful to all
San Franciscans, may find one or more in Garfield Park, Strybing Arboretum, or Conservatory Valley
in Golden Gate Park. These are homes to a number of much more landmarkable Sierra Redwoods than
the one at 3066 Market.
This is a more difficult case than most, because the proposed tree is sound, attractive, non-threatening,
and by all means an asset to the property (whether the owner realizes it or not) and especially to the
neighbors who enjoy its presence without having to take responsibility for it. It’s my opinion that the
tree should be protected by all appropriate means, and should remain in the garden. Landmarking
this tree is not an appropriate means of protection. It would be a misuse of municipal authority,
and would degrade the meaning and value of the Landmark Tree Ordinance.
Page 4
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name: Mei Ling Hui
Date of evaluation: March 19, 2014
Scientific name: Sequoia giganteurn
Common name: Giant Sequoia
Street address: 3066 Market St, San Francisco
Cross streets: Merritt St
Rarity
XYes _Partially _No
Common
Other
Rarity: X Rare
X Uncommon
Unusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Comment: The Urban Forest Map has 11 entries for this species, though these entries are use input
data and may not all of these entries may be accurate. There is a notable specimen in Garfield Square
Park, which is featured in Mike Sullivan’s book “The Trees of San Francisco.”
Physical Attributes
X Yes
Partially
No
Size:
X Large
Medium
Small
Notable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.
Comment: In its natural setting, this species grows much larger than this particular specimen. This
criterion relates to this species within the city. In our urban setting, this is a relatively large tree in
general.
Age: X Yes
X No
Significantly advanced age for the species.
Comment: This species can be extremely long lived. In term so absolute age compared to other
specimen of this species, the oldest believed to have lived for about 3500 years before it died, this tree
is very young at the estimated 50-70 years old that the UFC has received through public comment.
However, pre-settlement San Francisco is believed to have been a largely tree-less landscape and at
this age range, this specimen is a relatively old tree within the city. We wouldn’t see any specimen tree
in this species that we would say is generally advance age in San Francisco.
Distinguished form:
X Yes
No
Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.
Page 1
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
2
Describe: As described above, it’s a relatively young tree for its species. It has a significant lean to the
east. that the UFC has been told is due to the past presence of another large tree growing alongside this
tree, which was removed. The top of this tree is growing more directly upward straighter which
indicates that the lean may have been due to the other tree growing in close proximity. Some of the
lower branches were recently removed, which may have affected the tree’s visual impact. Whether or
not this pruning did affect how the tree looks, it is a nice looking tree that has a significant visual
impact on the small yard.
—
-
Tree condition:
X Good
Poor
Hazard
Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazard
Describe: The tree is leaning significantly to the east, but appears to be generally healthy.
Historical
Yes
Partially
X No
Historical Association:
X None apparent
Yes
Related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.
Describe nature of appreciation: I searched the Public Libraries image archives and couldn’t find
anything showing this tree. I also search for parcel data and it looks like the attached building may
predate the 1906 earthquake, though I wasn’t able to find any information on who lived there or who
built it.
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Yes
X Unknown
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage: None found.
Environmental
X Yes
Partially
No
Prominent landscape feature: X Yes
No
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible: The tree dominates the yard it is growing in. The neighbor to the
north’s abutting yard is highly landscaped and the other neighbors have some backyard landscaping.
The tree is tall enough that the top of it can be seen over the houses when on the surround streets.
Low tree density:
Low
X Moderate
High
Tree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.
Describe: The area has a smattering of sidewalk trees. There appear to be many backyard trees in this
neighborhood. There are a couple mini p[arks nearby that are nicely planted with trees.
Interdependent group of trees:
Yes
X No
This tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact on
adjacent trees.
Describe: The UFC received reports that another tree was growing alongside this tree. At this time, the
tree appears as a singular element in the yard space.
Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way: X Yes
High visibility and/or accessibility from public property.
Page 2
No
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
3
Describe: The tree is tall enough that the top of it can be seen over the houses when on the surround
streets.
X No
High traffic area:
Yes
Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has a
potential traffic calming effect.
Describe: The tree is in a private backyard. It may have a significant visual impact within the
backyards of the surrounding properties and is visible from the street. The tree may have some traffic
calming effect, but this would be difficult to quantify.
X No
Yes
Important wildlife habitat:
Species has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, or
nesting to specific known wildlife individuals.
Describe: Staff observed a song bird resting in the tree during the site visit, but did not observe any
nests or valuable foraging opportunities. It is possible that local fauna use twigs and needles to build
nests elsewhere, but staff did not observe any animals collecting nesting material.
Erosion control:
Yes
X No
Tree prevents soil erosion.
Describe: The tree is in developed backyard spaces. Though there is some grade, and the large tree
likely has large roots, the tree isn’t growing in an open area or on a significant slope.
No
Wind or sound barrier:
X Yes
Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.
Describe: The tree may be providing wind and sound barrier for the neighbor to the north.
Cultural
Yes
X
Partially
No
None apparent
X Yes
Neighborhood appreciation:
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
Describe: Corbett Height’s Neighbors have provided letters of support and other documentation to
support the nomination.
Yes
X None apparent
Cultural appreciation:
Particular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.
Describe nature of appreciation: None found.
X Yes
Planting contributes to neighborhood character:
No
Tree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.
Describe contribution: Many backyards in the area have trees. This tree has a significant visual impact
on the surrounding areas.
Unknown
Yes
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage: None found.
Page 3
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Prominent landscape feature: X Yes
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible:
No
Additional comments
It’s a nice tree that appears to be in good health, is large for the setting, and has some neighborhood
support for the nomination. The nomination was initiated by an area neighbor who worked with their
district supervisor to nominate this tree.
Page 4
4
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 0017-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name: Rose Hilison
Date of evaluation: March 19, 2014 (Wed.) 4:10pm
Scientific name: Seguoiadendron iganteum
—
4:20pm (per staff allotted evaluation timeframe)
—
Common name: Giant sequoia
Street address: 3066 Market Street (Block 2656 / Lot 020)
Cross streets: Danvers and Hattie
Rarity
Yes
XPartially
No
Common
Other
Rare
X Uncommon
Unusual species in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Comment: This conifer species is listed as uncommon/endangered (IUCN 3.1) per various internet
resources.* Tree is uncommon in SF. Jepson manual states the biogeographical distribution of
s.giganteum is in High Sierra Nevada (*Threatened status: IUCN Red List of Threatened Speciesz
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Wikipedia)
Rarity:
Physical Attributes
Yes
X Partially
No
Size: _X_Large
Medium
Small
Notable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.
Comment: This monecious evergreen appears to be the largest at this elevation in the Corbett Heights
area. It is located toward the east side in the rear yard open space area. The subject tree is
approximately 65 ft. high. The property owner and Mei Ling told me that Malcolm Hillan measured
the non-DBH circumference earlier to my arrival at 13 ft. (156 inches) diameter of 4.1 ft. (49
inches). I took pictures and estimate the circumference at the ground to be approximately 18 ft. (219
inches) = diameter of 2.9 ft. (35 inches) and the higher trunk diameter to be less than at the base.
Its overall green growth and vigor looked good. some inner older twigs persistent as research material
indicates occurs with older dead twigs hanging on younger aged trees (less than 100 years old). Cones
appear of uniform coloration (yellow-greenish). The canopy is about 20 feet across. Fibrous red
orange-brown bark appeared clean. Roots showed no evidence of issues._At the time of the visit, it
was sunny, no fog, no shadows cast on the deck. There was full sunlight at the deck and at the
ground level to be able to examine root area._Trees of same species in SF supposedly exists in Buena
Vista Park. I looked at the few around the Verdi statue in Golden Gate Park and near Golden Gate
Park near Park Presidio Avenue (My 36 pictures total attached at end of this report).
Page 1
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
2
Age:
Yes _X_No
Significantly advanced age for the species.
Comment: Species is long lived and is not anywhere near end of lifespan per various sources on
lifespan of this species. Unknown how old. “Encyclopedia of Life” states this species takes 20 years
to start bearing cones which this tree exhibits.
Distinguished form: _X_Yes
_No
Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.
Describe: Lower branches showed recent pruning to make room for deck. See “Tree condition” below
lower branches naturally diminish due to age and height gains. Tree has a slight lean. I read that
this species is apparently not easily toppled by storms nor damaged by fires. Otherwise, it appeared
that tree had healthy structure and mass. It is a “can’t miss” sight in the lower slope of this rear yard
open space looking down from Corbett. In their native habitat, this species is found on the slopes as
this backyard area downslopes towards the building. Tree branches appear to slightly overhang on
east side (right of tree as one faces it from the rear deck) and on north side (Corbett Ave side). I
questioned property owner about a 2.5-3 ft. diameter ring of concrete paver stones to the west of the
tree in the rear yard and if something was there before but he denied that there was anything there but
paver stones. I was trying to find out if there was something blocking the tree to make it grow with a
slight lean to the east. Perhaps the bit more robust growth of branches on the west side of the tree is
keeping the tree at a better balance, not just from a physics standpoint but also as it relates to being
visually pleasant in its current form overall.
--
Tree condition:
XGood
Poor
Hazard
Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazard
Describe: The tree appears to be in good health. Tree has fairly recent pruning cuts of lower branches.
Trees of this species naturally have fewer lower branches when very tall and be branchless for 80-125
feet off the ground*. Thus the pruning out of the lower branches is not a detraction from condition or
form (above category), Tree exhibits different shades of green and other colors depending on time of
day and lighting conditions. Some may be due to cultural issues, some may be natural. Bark of trunk
appears to have no significant damage to compromise condition; tree appears to have sufficient
spacing. This is a single leader, single-trunked tree. Tree exhibits cones which generally take two
seasons to mature per literature._Trees under 100 years old retain most of their dead branches and
withstand wind and fire per research available on Internet. (See 36 photos herein at end of report.)
Historical
Yes
Partially
X No
Historical Association:
Yes
_X_ None apparent
Related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.
Describe nature of appreciation: No historical association known at the time of evaluation for this
specific tree. Unknown how long the tree has been in this place. Perhaps the neighbors know. As
background info on tree species. there are two sequoia species in CA the other is sequoia
sempervirens. As background for this species.. .Earliest known written reference was in 1833 by
hunters in diary of explorer J.K. Leonard. After a widely documented sighting in 1852 by hunter
Augustus T. Dowd, people hurried to build roads and logging started as a way to make money. Local
Indians knew of the sequoia forest and called the tree “Wawona” which imitates the sound of the
.
—
Page 2
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
3
Northern Spotted Owl which the Indians thought guarded the forest. The Tule River Indian tribes
called the sequoia “Toos-pung-ish” of”Hea-mi-withic.” The Dowd sighting sequoia withstood many
storms and fires for many centuries. It was felled at 1300_years of age. Preservationists came in after
many giant old growth seguoias felled and people realized the wood was brittle and yielded low wood
quality which ended up making only small poles rather than be used in construction. The logging
remains still are visible 100 years later because the tannins in the wood prevent its decay. John Muir
(1838-1914) was a crusader to save the natural forests of the Sierra Nevada. Logging of the giant
sequoias stopped around 1920.
Botanical history of this species includes Albert Kellogg of the California Academy of Sciences who
showed branches to botanist William Lobb from England. Kellogg was going to name it after the first
president of the U.S., Washington Washingtonia gigantea. Lobb went to Calaveras Grove and
collected specimens and returned to San Francisco and then departed for England. He gave some of
his collection to the professor of Botany at the University of London, John Lindley. The he named the
species after the Duke of Wellington, Wellingtonia gigantea. In the end, John T. Buchholz used
Seguoiadendron in 1939. Tree is commonly called “giant redwood” or “giant sequoia.”*
(*www rnonumentaltrees coin)
—
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Yes
_X_Unknown
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage:
Environmental
•
Yes
Partially
No
Prominent landscape feature: _X_Yes
No
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible: (See photos.) This tree is a mature redwood. Sequoias have been
studied for their ability to pull water. Osmotic pressure allows water to reach extreme heights via the
xylem and the sub-pressure of evaporating water from its leaves. Sequoias also sequester water from
the fog. The tree also reduces air pollutants_This large tree sequesters rainwater and aids in pollution
reduction due to its size.
Low tree density:
_X_Low
_X Moderate
High
Tree exists in a neighborhood with very few trees.
Describe: This rear yard open space area is not devoid of trees; however, the LARGER ones are few
and far between on this block, especially a native California species that contributes to the history of
the state and the city. The front street tree area of 3066 Market Street has a few street-tree sized trees.
These trees have been pruned when one compares the 2011 Google image of the street to a 2014
Google image. The density of rear yard trees in this area also seems to have declined in this area today
as compared to past images. The city has embarked on a campaign to retain as much as the green open
spaces as much as possible so it would be good to save the larger trees especially if the neighbors are
in support.
Interdependent group of trees:
_X__Yes
_XNo
This tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact on
adjacent trees.
Page 3
4
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Describe: Removal of this tree may impact less-light loving trees if any on nearby parcels. Tree of
this height and size may be sought after by certain bird species and act as resting stops and places of
refuge from becoming prey by birds with short flight patterns. Perhaps birds nest in it.
__Yes
Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way:
High visibility and/or accessibility from public property.
No
Describe: Tree is easily seen from different vantage points.. .from the front of the property along
thi
Market Street e.g. and from Danvers & Market, From 1 8
Street at Danvers, Danvers St. between
Corbett and Market as well as Corbett Avenue. Upper 30% of top of tree is seen if you stand close to
the site. About 65% -70% of tree visible from sidewalk level at various public rights-of-way near the
site. Another vantage point is not at sidewalk level but from the Muni riders since Muni goes up
Corbett St. So even if it is in the backyard, it is a very visible by the public tree.
High traffic area:
_X_Yes
_No
Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has a
potential traffic calming effect.
Describe: Peculiar street layout of Market Street in this area Merritt St. “End” blends with Market
St. The low-traffic nature of this part of the street directly in front of the parcel is in stark contrast to
the extremely busy (almost a mini-freeway) part of Market Street just steps away. Drivers can see
the tree from this busy street location. So it depends which street you are standing on or driving along.
A Muni bus traverses Corbett Avenue and no doubt one can see if from riding this bus so more of the
public can view it as well.
—
Important wildlife habitat:
_X_Yes
No
Species has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, or
nesting to specific known wildlife individuals. A neighbor stated various birds and squirrels in this
tree_I didn’t see any wildlife in the tree the day of the evaluation, but I did return for a few more
pictures on another day when I saw a crow perched atop (picture attached). Unsure of any previous
nesting activity in this tree.
Erosion control:
XYes
No
Tree prevents soil erosion.
Describe: Tree root system for a tree this size likely holds earth together on slope of rear yard area.
Wind or sound barrier:
Yes
_X_j’Jo
Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.
Describe: There was not a lot of noise heard in the area from where the tree stood. The wind
conditions during the evaluation in the area ranged from 1.9 mph to 6.0 mph (anemometer used). It
was not very windy at the front at street level nor was it windy in the rear yard. Unable to determine if
the wind was blocked by the tree being at this site though it may have buffered the traffic noise from
Market St. I was able to take pictures of the tree without having to wait for wind to die down. Again,
I am unsure if the tree were not there if sounds would bounce off buildings and people upslope would
hear them.
Page 4
5
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Cultural
Yes _X_ Partially
No
X Yes
None apparent
Neighborhood appreciation:
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
Describe: One neighbor stated there are many signatures supporting the nomination and showing long
time appreciation and support for the nomination of this tree. Sequoia £ianteum is a native
California tree. Its wood was used in the construction of many buildings in the early days of San
Francisco and the state. See under “HISTORICAL” above.
_X_Yes
None apparent
Cultural appreciation:
Particular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.
Describe nature of appreciation: Unknown for this specific tree. Cultural uses of species is per
“HISTORICAL” category above e.g. native California Indians cultural association.
—
_XNo
_X_Yes
Planting contributes to neighborhood character:
aesthetic.
significantly
neighborhood
to, or represents,
Tree contributes
Describe contribution: Tree appears to be a very tall if not the tallest tree in the rear open space
blockface that is situated at this grade level. It appears to fit in rather symphonically with the other
other few larger trees in the backyards. It helps to visually connect the tree at the very top of Burnett
Avenue and the tree to the east down the block. Without this. the area may seem less forest like.
—
—
XUnknown
Yes
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage:
No
Prominent landscape feature: XYes
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible: See attached photos, Very easily seen from various vantage points
due to its size, mass of green and other colors. It balances out the hillside rear yard open space. It
accentuates and joins the surrounding few occurrences of the moderately large tree at the top of the hill
on Corbett Avenue and the mature trees towards the east about halfway down the block.
Aesthetically, the whole blockface would look somewhat lonely with only the square buildings on the
hillside as one walks and looks up towards Corbett Avenue from Market Street or as one drives along
Market Street. It affords a break in visual impact of just buildings on the hillside with this impressive
seq uoi a.
Additional comments
Jepson horticultural information states it grows especially well in zones 4. 5. 6. and 17 and also in
zone I (Sunset climate zones) in nearly full or full sun. Given other horticultural needs, grows in
Page 5
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
zones 2, 3, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23.
*
6
ZONE 17: Marine effects in Southern
Oregon, Northern and Central California The climate in this zone features mild,wet, almost frostless
winters and cool summers with frequent fog or wind. On most days and in most places, the fog tends to
come in high and fast, creating a cooling and humidifying blanket between the sun and the earth, reducing
the intensity of the light and sunshine. Some heat-loving plants (citrus, hibiscus, gardenia) don’t get enough
heat to fruit or flower reliably. In a 20-year period, the lowest winter temperatures in Zone 17 ranged from 36
to 23°F (2 to —5°C). The lowest temperatures on record range from 30 to 20°F (—1 to —7°C).Of further
interest in this heat-starved climate are the highs of summer, normally in the 60 to 75°F (16 to 24°C) range.
The average highest temperature in Zone 17 is only 97°F (36°C). In all the other adjacent climate zones,
average highest temperatures are in the 104 to 116°F (40 to 47°C) range. (*www.sunset.com)
It is interesting that Sunset states that Zone 17 (San Francisco Bay Area) is good for the sequoia
iganteum because it is not seen very often so I assumed it was not something for the climate in this
city but my assumption was incorrect.
Tree appears to offer some privacy with enough spacing currently between branches for sunlight to
stream onto the 3066 Market St. parcel. Per property owner, sequoia has been pruned of lower
branches to not interfere with the 2”-story deck in the rear. No branches overhung the deck nor could
be reached by people standing on the deck. Per property owner, he would like to prune the west side
of the tree further. All pictures taken without flash as there was plenty of light on this sunny day of
the tree evaluation. Property owner told me, as he said he has told everybody else who has visited to
examine the tree, that he bought the property two months ago and he does not want the tree
landmarked “on his watch” and would rather the next owner of the property deal with the issue.
See attached BACKGROUND DOCUMENTATION on sequoia giganteum & PHOTOS.
Attachments:
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT:
History of the giant sequoia
Paleobotanic evolution
The conifer tree species of the subfamily Sequoioideae were once widespread along the northern
hemisphere. Fossil remains of the genus Sequoia from the Jurassic Period (180 to 135 million years
ago) have been found in North America, Greenland, and the Eurasian continent, suggesting vast
forests.
Page 6
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
7
Only three species survived the Ice Ages: the giant sequoia (Sequoladendron giganteum) and the
coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) in California and the dawn redwood (Metasequoia
lyptostroboides) in remote areas in Southwest China.
More about the coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
More about the dawn redwood (Metasequoia g(yptostroboides).
Discovery
The earliest known written reference to the giant trees
in California was made in 1833 by an expedition of hunters. This was found in the diary of the
explorer J. K. Leonard; the reference does not mention any locality, but his route would have taken
him through the Calaveras Grove. This discovery was not publicized. In 1850 John M. Wooster would
have carved his initials in the bark of a tree in the Cataveras Grove but again, this received no
publicity.
The first certain and widely documented sighting of the giant sequoia took place in the spring of
1852. A hunter who was chasing a bear in the Sierra Nevada mountains, entered the woods now
known as ‘North Grove’ in Calaveras State Park. The hunter, Augustus T. Dowd, could not believe his
eyes and once he arrived at the nearby mining camp, no one would believe him before seeing the
enormous trees themseLves. The trees gained instant popularity and became well known by the
general public. Roads were constructed and a lot of loggers got dollar signs in their eyes.
In the following years, more and Larger giant sequoia groves were discovered, although it needs to
be said that these forest were known for centuries by the local Indian tribes. They called the tree
Wawona, an onomatopoeia that imitates the sound of the Northern Spotted Owl, which was
believed by the Yosemite Indians to be the guardian of the forest. The tribes who lived along the
Tule River called the tree Toos-pung-ish of Hea-mi-withic.
The old sequoia first seen by Augustus T. Dowd, was named “The Discovery Tree”. After withstanding
storms and forest fires for many centuries, in 1852 the tree encountered a western man. A year
later the tree was felled...
It took five men and 22 days (sketch on the left) and after counting the tree rings it appeared that
this tree was 1300 years old. The remaining stump was used as a dance floor...
Page 7
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
8
‘
lit
•
•‘
THE STUMP .ThUNK
.
i4llw’i Iar1r,’IT4(r/,i,,’
MAMMOTH TREE
/‘.‘,1n.
daM(/q ,t
/1w
CALVtU
.)/j,ft
a/ ,ii, /,m,
It tells a lot about the mentality of the time. Now the felLing of the largest giant sequoias sounds
like a sad and respectless waste, but is understandable in the zeitgeist of the 19th century.
Think about this: in that time of Limited communication a lot of stories reached the AmericanEuropean east coast of the U.S. from the “Far West’ during the Californian goldrush. Massive gold
mountains! Gigantic trees! Huge waterfalls where the water runs to the top! The European
immigrants quickly developed a ‘first see, then believe” mentality.
In that period there also was an unlimited optimism: by the Large technological advances of the
time the first railroads were constructed, large bridges, ships, and the first skyscrapers were built,
Page 8
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
9
canals were dug. For the first time, men got control over nature and was able to shape its
environment. The fact that now it was possible for men to fell down such large trees was for some a
moral obligation to do so.
A number of old growth trees were felled exactly to prove their existence (and to make money in
the process). In 1891, for example, the “Mark Twain Tree’ was felled. A slice of its trunk was sent to
the American Museum of Natural History in New York, and another slice to the British Museum of
Natural History in Kensington, London.
Consciousness about long term preservation, that men can actually change the entire climate of our
planet and the responsability that comes with it, and the awareness that the earth’s capacity to
handle men’s hunger for destruction and waste disposal is limited only came later.
Timber!
—
_,__s_•
.
—
Almost everywhere in the remote mountain valleys of the Sierra Nevada small and large timber mills
and farms mushroomed. While the first were felling numerous old growth trees that were many
centuries old, the latter brought sheep and goats that largely destroyed the grasslands.
The giant sequoias wood yield was minimal: because of the low wood quality if often fell into pieces
when the tree fell. The image on the left shows such a scene in Nelder Grove. The loggers tried to
avoid this as much as possible by digging trenches and filling them with branches to cushion the
blow.
The soft, brittle wood was mainly used to make small poles to be used in vineyards and not as a
construction material since it was too soft.
In a lot of these places you can still see these logging remains after more than 100 years: due to its
high tannin content these trees have proven to be very resistant to wood rot.
John Muir (photo) (1 838-1 914), a Scot who during his entire life made efforts to
preserve the natural forests of the Sierra Nevada, has fought hard against the logging and the
grazing by cattle. Eventually he was able to turn the Yosemite area into a National Park, together
with a number of other arrangements. He was standing at the cradle of the National Park system in
the U.S. and was founder of the “The Sierra Club”, that nowadays is one of the most important
conservation organizations in the United States. Still he could not prevent the Tuolumne rivier to be
dammed and flooding the pristine Hetch Hetchy Valley to generate electricity for San Francisco.
Page 9
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
10
Due to efforts Like these of John Muir and the marginal yields of these giants, the logging of giant
sequoias was largely stopped around the years 1920.
Still, until the years 1980 young specimens of the giant sequoia were logged. The general public
became more and more offended, and the call for more national parks, state parks, and state
monLiments became louder. Nowadays most of the few remaining old growth giant sequoia groves
are protected and the logging of these trees is prohibited by law.
Choice of the name Sequoiadendron
ecause the species was not known by botanists before 1852, this plant
species was not described scientifically. In 1852 Albert Kellogg of the California Academy of
Sciences received some branches from the newLy discovered Calaveras Grove. Reportedly there
were no cones or flowers, so Kellogg wanted to postpone describing the species a little longer until
he had a full collection of plant parts. He was planning to call the tree Washingtonia gigantea, in
honor of the first president of the U.S. In the meantime, he showed the branches to William Lobb.
He had just arrived from England to make a plant collection journey for the British tree nursery
Veitch a Co.
As opposed to Kellogg who did not visit the Calaveras Grove immediately, Lobb rushed his way over
and collected aLL necessary parts, a large number of seeds, and even two little trees. He returned to
San Francisco and without saying a word about it to the American botanists, he returned to England.
He arrived on December 15, 1853 and gave a part of his coLlection to John Lindley, professor of
Botany at the University of London. Soon after he got the material, on December 24, Lindley made
an offical, formal description of the species. He named the tree WeUingtonia gigantea in honor of
Arthur Wellesley, the British duke of Wellington, who had defeated the French Emperor Napoleon
Bonaparte in Waterloo, Belgium and had died the previous year.
As a matter of fact, this name was invalid because WeUingtonia was already in use since 1840 for
the plant Wellingtonia arnottiana in the Sabiaceae family, but that was not known at the time. By
the way, Washingtonia would have been invalid too, because it was already in use for a certain
genus of palms.
Furious Americans
Lindleys publication triggered a storm of protest from American botanists who were outraged that
the worLds largest tree had been named after an English war hero by a botanist who had never seen
the tree. The Americans promptly pubLished a spate of different names, none of which are
legitimate under current rules of botanical nomenclature.
Page 10
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
11
The French Joseph Decaisne intervened, who in 1854 published the species as Sequoia giantea, a
plausible assignment that ultimately won acceptance by British botanists.
Thereafter Wellingtonia slowly disappeared from the Literature. Only in U.K., the name is very
riir (
persistent. On the image on the right you can see a name tag in F
-
But, to complicate things more, Sequoia gigantea was also not a
Legitimate name, having been previously used by Endlicher to
describe a horticultural variety of the coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens), and this problem was not satisfactorily resolved until
the American John T. Buchholz described Sequoiadendron in 1939.
This name derives from the already described genus Sequoia and
dendron (äEväpov), the Greek word for ‘tree’.
Buchholz’ decision to establish a new genus apart from Sequoia was widely criticized by the old
guard of California botanists, but his arguments based on substantial differences in the
development of Sequoia and Sequoiadendron seed cones have subsequently won general
acceptance.
-
-
In the U.S. the tree is known as ‘giant redwood’, ‘giant sequoia’, ‘bigtree’ or ‘big tree’. In the U.K.,
next to the names ‘giant redwood’ or ‘giant sequoia’, the name ‘WelLingtonia’ is still used.
Since its discovery popular in English gardens
During the second half of the 19th century it was fashionable for European castLe Lords to lay out a
so called English garden (also called a garden in landscape style). These gardens, influenced by
Romanticism, were gardens consisting of apparent wild parts, winding paths and an abundance of
plant species.
As soon as the forests of giants were discovered in the CaLifornian mountains during the gold rush (in
1852), the giant sequoia became a very fashionable tree to plant in these gardens, that were often
constructed as arboreta with lots of exotic, recently discovered trees. This explains why the oldest
specimens outside their natural range can be found in European castle gardens and arboreta.
In the U.K. the oldest ones can be found. The climate is ideal and the trees are growing very fast.
The tallest giant sequoias already reach 54 m (177 ft). They can be found in Benmore Botanic
Garden in Scotland. The thickes ones have a girth of more than 11 m (36 ft).
Also in France the tree became a popuLar tree: entire avenues were planted with this tree. In
BeLgium the largest specimen has a girth of 9 m (30 ft) at 1.5 m height.
Giant seguolas elsewhere
Horticultural varieties or cultivars
Since the discovery of the species a number of horticultural varieties or cultivars have been
selected Like ‘Pygmaeum’, a dwarf form, ‘Barabits Requiem’, a broad weeping form, ‘BLauer
Eichzwerg’, a blue form, and ‘Variegatum, a variegated form, among many others.
www.monumentaltrees.com
SEE NEXT PAGES FOR PHOTOS...
Page II
—
evaluation at 3066 Market St., SF, CA Wed., March 19, 2014, 4:10pm
(36 pictures)
—
4:20pm, staff-allotted time.
Page 12
04. Closer shot of sequoia at 3066 Market St.
01. Market at Danvers (west side)
02. Going east along Market...
03. Farther along Market (east side) w/ sequoia
—
Pictures No. 01 through No. 03 show the “lay of the land” (west to east) along Market Street near sequoiadendron giganteurn at 3066 Market:
Sequoia giganteum
CD
2.
C
©
-t
a
-I
.1
—
-
—
m
11. Lower portion of trunk
th
St. at Danvers
08. Tree from 1 8
09. Base of sequoia giganteum
Page 14
12. Facing north, 12”x2” lumber
& gray 12” concrete payers
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
13. Base area is approximately 70” across
10. Lower trunk area & vicinity
14
14. Close-up of root area
Page 15
15. Looking cast from grade level of property
15
16. Northwest side of tree
Page 16
17. Northeast side of tree
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
18. West side of tree
19. East side of tree
16
I
-
iForm and Criteria
23. Top of tree closer shot
Page 17
20. Sequoia from 3066 Mkt. 2’-story deck
-
Urban Forestry Council
rk TreeEv’
L
22. Lower branches
--
Corbett yard overhang
24. Lower down on tree from 2h1dstory deck of 3066 Market St.
21. Sequoia from upper floor of Corbett
17
Page 1 8
25. Cuts visible from 2rstory deck of 3066 Market St.
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
26. West side
—
tree branches with cones
18
Page 19
27. Close-up of cones on branches on west side of tree facing north (from 3066 Market St.)
L
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
19
Page 20
28. Sequoia giganteum with crow (about 18” long) sitting atop
-
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
—
helps to scale tree size (picture taken from Market St. on Apr. 13’ 14)
20
Page 21
30. 2011 Google view going down traffic lane of Market St.
31. 2014 Google bird’s-eye-view of sequoia in rear yard open space
29. Sequoia giganteum at 3066 Market St. from Danvers, facing east. (picture taken on Apr. 13’14)
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
21
Page 22
32. Sequoia near GGPark / Park Presidio Ave.
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
33. Branches of Park Presidio Ave. sequoia
34. Branches of Park Presidio Ave. sequoia
22
Page 23
35. Sequoias near Verdi statue in GGPark
mrs
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form aud Criteria
36. Sequoia next to Verdi statue in GGPark
23
l
4c(5 11
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Pursuant to Ordinance 00 17-06 and Public Works Code Section 810, the UFC has developed these criteria for
evaluating potential landmaxk 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 the
same community importance that a street or park tree would. Use comment sections, as appropriate, to explain
or support evaluation. Attach sheets if more space is needed.
Evaluator’s name:
4
Date of evaluation:
OOC
Scientific name:
Street address:
?t
(p
(
0
c.ejC( j
U
M_k* f
Cross streets:
1’k
Rarity
Yes rtially
—
4
.-i4tyi
9
c
I
Common name:
LQ..’Ud- Yv-
—
No
_Common
__Uncommon
Rarity: ._._..Rare
Unusual speci s in San Francisco or other geographic regions.
Comment:
v-eAJ.A
ii rC -*iYVO,A
.
Physical Attributes
—
Yes
—
Partially
.
__Other
-.
No
Small
/Medium
Size:
..Large
Notable size compared to other trees of the same species in San Francisco.
Comment:
Age:
Significantly advanced age for the species.
Comment:
.Yes
Distinguished form:
Tree is an example of good form for its species, has a majestic quality or otherwise unique structure.
Describe:
Page 1
S7k.
2
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
_Poor
_Hazard
“Good
Tree condition:
Consider overall tree health and structure, and whether or not tree poses a hazard
Describe:
/WL
‘-
j. fCov(
A
&4Li 2
r41
AQ -ô
I
Historical
— Yes — Partially
c&tt% ck.
c-t
---
QC7(
-
s
k
j No
Yes
Historical Association:
._y None apparent
Related to a historic or cultural building, site, street, person, event, etc.
Describe nature of appreciation:
-
—
,c.4\A-
Profiled in a publication or other media:
Unknown
__Yes
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage:
Environmental
—
Yes .. Partially
No
Prominent landscape feature:
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible:
—)
I
ç
.,&Q...(
LS
J LS LAKJ
S
).High
Low tree density:
Tree exists in a neigh.borood with very fewtrees.
Describe:
1
)j_c’ t
_No
_Yes
Interdependent group of trees:
This tree in an integral member of a group of trees and removing it may have an adverse impact on
adjacent trees.
Describe:
Visible or Accessible from public right-of-way:
.JC.No
High visibility andlor accessThility from public property.
Describe:
ft(
4)CP
.
siLAA-l_
.
0
I
Page 2
D-iA
3
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
High traffic area:
_..Yes
Tree is located in an area that has a high volume of vehicle, pedestrian or bike traffic and has a
potential traffic calming effect.
S A
9 r_L’
J
4
Describe:
1i
4
tt
Upp-
hôJi.&
kQt
+f(c
Y24c
Important wildlife habitat:
Species has a known relationship with a particular local wildlife species or it provides food, shelter, or
nestincr to specific known wildljfe individuals..
C i\
ft
)A’S
i9s
e
1
C—)
4
Erosion control:
Yes
Tree prevents soil erosion.
Describe:
Yes
Wind or sound barrier:
Tree reduces wind speed or mitigates undesirable noise.
Describe:
Cultural
Yes
X Partially
—
No
__None apparent
J_ Yes
Multiple indicators such as letters of support, petition, outdoor gatherings, celebrations adjacent or
related to tree, etc. Attach documentation:
{2ik ôÔ
j( GYP.- VJ M-LDescribe: t &ei
iç \ Ct
Neighborhood appreciation:
L
1
ô
J
-
-.
-
1
-
_Yes
None apparent
Particular value to certain cultural or ethnic groups in the city.
Describe nature of appreciation:
Cultural appreciation:
Planting contributes to neighborhood character:
_Yes
Tree contributes significantly to, or represents, neighborhood aesthetic.
Describe contribution:
Page 3
4
Urban Forestry Council
Landmark Tree Evaluation Form and Criteria
Profiled in a publication or other media:
__Yes
_Unknown
Tree has received coverage in print, internet, video media, etc. Attach documentation if appropriate.
Describe coverage:
......No
Prominent landscape feature: jLYes
A striking and outstanding natural feature.
Describe, attach photo if possible:
(
‘../
‘
jr
I
U
(
Adi
dtional comments
/
sS
x
(*
$0
-
Page 4
cs
J