Report: UCSF’s Agenda Planning Meeting #2

This evening we had the second of three scheduled agenda planning meetings. Those present were the usual agenda-planners, with the addition of Walter Caplan (President, Forest Knolls Neighborhood Organization) who had been outside the country at the previous one.

This meeting had a greater level  of  discussion of the issues between the opposing sides, and as such was more of a workshop.

The map above is not the one used at the meeting, but we’re staying with it for consistency. (The map used was just a map of the forest, similar to the one on the home page of this website.)

The main focus of this meeting was the Demonstration areas, where various actions are planned to see what works on the mountain. Three were mentioned at the previous community meeting. They were South Ridge, shown in pink as Area L on this map; Edgewood, estimated as the area shown in purple as area Z; and along the creek, area P shown in turquoise. Three new ones were considered. (They were not precisely defined, so all of these map markings are estimates based on the discussion.)

  • The Northwest area above Kirkham, where a neighbor was concerned about hazardous trees (probably somewhere within the area of  light purple wavy stripe, area Y);
  • The “Classroom area” off the Historic Trail (shown in Cobalt Blue as area W);
  • Another Northwest corner area where Nootka Reedgrass grows beneath blackberry (Area H contiguous with Area W);

Some of the issues raised:

  • Limits to demonstration areas. Are “demonstration areas” limited to 2.8 acres? How large an area can be demonstrated on before it ceases to be demonstration and becomes implementation?
  • Maintenance vs restoration. What are the boundaries between “maintenance” and “restoration” for the purposes of the Environmental Study? (Maintenance is permitted, but changes to the eco-system are not.)
  • View corridors” as a positive vs the sense of containment with a dense forest, isolated from the sound and sight of the city. How do the views compare with Twin Peaks and Tank Hill?
  • Trails. Expanding the trail system to coordinate with other areas (Interior Green Belt, etc) vs avoiding further trail expansion to maintain the character of the forest.
  • Changes to the forest eco-system, including animals and insects. The need to collect data on the results of actions already taken, e.g. the Native Garden.
  • What is actually  being demonstrated? Visual impact; effect on eco-systems; whether native plants will grow and how much care they will need; maintenance inssues; animal and insect use of the “restored” area.
  • To whom is it being demonstrated? An “assessor” (selected how?) or the community? Or both?

Walter Caplan raised the issues of UCSF’s legal obligations, and suggested recourse to the original agreement plus getting a legal opinion as to hazards and liabilities. Barbara Bagot-Lopez said it’s on the UCSF website and promised to send the link, which we will add. [Edited to Add: She sent us the link; we’ve posted the agreement here.]

Several people asked for cost estimates for all the activities under consideration.

Non-herbicidal methods of regrowth prevention were mentioned, but not actually discussed. They will be on the agenda for the next meeting.

This entry was posted in Environment, Meetings, Mt Sutro Cloud Forest, nativism, Neighborhood impact, UCSF and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Report: UCSF’s Agenda Planning Meeting #2

  1. Pingback: Laguna Honda Lake: PUC promises broken? « FOREST KNOLLS

  2. Pingback: Report: UCSF Sutro Forest meeting, June « Save Mount Sutro Forest

Comments are closed.