Last week the clear cutting of the trees on Park Street took almost everyone by surprise. I had mentioned that work was to be done on Park Street earlier this month and lamented the really crappy timing but I have to say that I was shocked when I saw this video posted by the owner of Monkey Bars last Thursday. I’ve been going back and forth about posting about it because — well because Patch had done a number of articles about it already and I didn’t necessarily want to pile on top of the already outraged pile of people.
But then yesterday commenter “Not. A. Alamedan” posted a photo of a stump on Park Street that really made me seriously cranky:
What was upsetting about the Public Notice tacked on to the stump of a leveled tree was the fact that the tree that the stump had been attached to did not get similar consideration when it came to public notice by the Department of Public Works.
Turns out the Stump Notice is actually not Public Works sign but rather a funny, ironic protest sign.
It is really troublesome that a City Department would not go through the motions — at the very least — of notifying people that the trees would be slated for removal. Given the uproar over East End trees that were eventually spared from the chainsaws, Public Works knows that trees are something that people get a little touchy about.
Wait, scratch that. Certain trees people get a little touchy about. Other trees no one really notices. I can’t forget the lack of uproar over the mass removal of a substantial number of trees to make way for the Stargell realignment. Some of those trees were just as magnificent as the ones on Park Street — and some probably more so — but didn’t receive anywhere near the level of lamentation as the ones of Park Street. But I digress.
Anyway, what the City should do is make sure that they put up some larger trees when they replace them. Because you know the City always likes to put in those tiny puny little saplings that look like a puppy can knock them over. And before someone says that the City doesn’t do it, there is precedence for the City putting in more substantial trees and it happens to be on the West End and around the place where the last tree massacre happened around the Stargell realignment:
There are quite a few of these tall, substantial trees along the newly landscaped portion of Stargell and this is probably less than a year worth of growth if my memory is correct as to when these went in.
These newly planted trees look 100% better than the sickly variety planted on Park Street during the last beautification which have several years of growth. The cost to put in larger and more established trees will be a small step toward righting the lack of proper noticing that happened on Park Street.
It’s good to see the City take some measure of responsibility for what happened and recognize that the process was imperfect, but more should be done. So, what can you do about it. If you can’t make it out to the next City Council (or didn’t make it to last night City Council to complain about the trees) you can fill out this petition which urges the City Council to take the following steps in light of what happened last week:
- Commit to planting 20% mature trees: It may be true that the trees on Park Street needed to removed, however it is a City decision to replace them with scrawny twigs that will take years to grow to a meaningful size. The trees in the previous phase are still small and inconsequential nearly 5 years after planting. Other projects have planted large trees and our downtown shouldn’t wait a decade for the benefits of this project
- Commit to a public planning policy: This project highlights poor consistency in planning project and policies in Alameda. The council needs to adopt a mandatory policy of public input at the beginning and end of all planning processes. The Sunshine Ordinance was a good first step, now it’s time to take the next one.
- Accountability: The community concerns were easily foreseeable and Public Works has a history of proposing draconian actions for mature trees based on engineering assumptions, only to find non-invasive solutions when pushed by the community. It is unclear on whether the clear cutting of downtown was required. What is clear is that the public was cut out of the conversation. The way in which this occurred is unacceptable.
do people need to see drawings? Did Council get to see any when they voted approval? The number of proposed new trees is now greater as is the number of street lamps. Obviously the trees can’t be a species that will grow as large as the one that was in front of Starbucks or the street scape will be a crowded mess. I’m sure many folks would like trees to grow as big as the Starbucks tree but don’t have a clear picture of the “vision” of the street scape.
Comment by M.I. — October 26, 2011 @ 8:18 am
There have been so many flags on the field . . . . . That said, you are right, tree removals didn’t catch my attention. I’ve been asking myself, why not? Alameda has a history of developing good master plans and then negating or ignoring them in favor of the quick fix. I should have ignored the contents of the City Tree Plan as city staff and their associates did. But, I read the plan, disagreed with some of it, but not enough to complain, and assumed its citizen components would pay attention. Having read the plan, when I listened to the talk about tree removals, I assumed that removal of old trees meant decrepit, not really viable in some way, about to become hazardous. The Plan specifically says healthy, mature trees will not be cut without exceptional reason! It also shows Park St. in an area which trees other than the about to be ubiquitous Ginkgo may be planted. It talks about how clear cutting a street is a big no-no. It never occurred to me that anyone would cut down a possibly 75-100 year, mature, healthy tree, that didn’t even have a root ball.
The other thing I didn’t know, is the municipal code sets up the public works director as the god of trees. He can, with impunity, do anything he wants about city trees. Look it up under trees in parks, it’s really trees in and out of parks. I think the ordinance takes precedence over the tree plan. I think this fiasco has shown that we need to revise that. The public works director clearly should not have that kind of power. I’m not sure I can bring the code section over, so I’ll post this and then try.
Comment by Li_ — October 26, 2011 @ 9:03 am
MC 23-3.1 is the place. I can’t make it copy & paste, sorry.
Comment by Li_ — October 26, 2011 @ 9:16 am
I was at the very well attended Planning Board MIF Scoping meeting on Monday night and there were a few speakers that spoke on this issue. There was standing room only as you can imagine, but I’m so glad to see so many people taking an active part in what’s happening in our city, even if we don’t agree on all the issues.
We all get so busy with our families and work that we don’t attend meetings, or read the local newspaper, or read upcoming city council or planning board agendas thinking others will take care of it and speak for us; but it makes a big difference when we show up at city council meetings and planning board meetings and let them know our concerns.
I was appalled at what happened with our trees on Park Street, and am glad to see the city taking responsibility for what happened. And thanks Lauren for your petition – I understand there will be a public hearing in November about the trees. This will be an effective tool that will help the community and the city resolve this issue.
Comment by Karen Bey — October 26, 2011 @ 9:32 am
Most important line [bottom of sign]:”If the stump removal is protested within the posting period, a public hearing will be scheduled”. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is gone! This is why we need more vigilantes! I can’t do it all–I’m waiting to see what happens to the new big copper sculptures consent calendared for Grand Pacific Marina. Where are you, Just as Vigilant?
In a prescient convergence of the universe, at the same meeting some of the best objections to the Mif land swap were related to HBIA’s plans to cut down 165 existing memorial trees to make room for 130 houses. Please remember to transfer your rage appropriately. Those trees deserve to live, too!
Comment by a vigilante — October 26, 2011 @ 10:11 am
Carol, I actually liked the art sculptures that were approved by the Planning Board on Monday, but your concerns were noted and validated. Regarding the trees, I am a proponent of conservation development and have seen many conservation developments where they relocate trees within the development in lieu of killing them as part of the preservation, conservation, and landscape beautification process.
Comment by Karen Bey — October 26, 2011 @ 10:46 am
Thanks to Lauren for posting the petition, and thanks to Li as well for information on the city’s tree policies, in particular that ” The Plan specifically says healthy, mature trees will not be cut without exceptional reason”. It really bothered me to hear that the “starbucks” tree was cut down because it was “too big and out of proportion”, as if it were street furniture.
Comment by dlm — October 26, 2011 @ 11:57 am
Li, 2011 minus 75 is 1936. Does anybody want to start a contest to see who can guess the exact date the trees were planted? I’ll ask Chris Buckley AAPS how to verify when the trees were planted. I will bet they were younger than 75 years. I wonder if they were the first generation of trees to be planted. Carol Parker posted this link on Patch http://www.alamedainfo.com/Alameda_CA_post_cards.htm, and she noted that in the early years there were no trees but many buildings had large awnings.
Comment by M.I. — October 26, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
UNCLE! You get the gold research star, Mark. But, the post card with the electric train at the Park St Station shows a pretty big tree. There are mature trees pictured on Webster Street in 1970. Giving consideration to the known rivalry between Webster and Park, is it possible that Webster Street had trees well before Park St? Since the trees on Webster are not new trees, will you go for 50 years? The gingko in front of my former house is not as mature as the Starbucks tree I’m talking about and I know it is more than 40 years. The tree was roof high when I bought the house.
One of the postcards shows a view from city hall tower down Santa Clara. It is lined with very big trees. And other streets had trees. Does anyone know– were these the trees that were decimated by a disease? I remember talk of same. Someone said hundreds of trees went down. I remember there was another scare in the 70s(?) when our association collected money to spray or treat the Fernside trees because the city couldn’t do it. Thanks for the link to the post cards. It was fun to look at all the different places (and their trees).
Comment by Li_ — October 27, 2011 @ 10:31 pm