I have long been concerned about how well we are maintaining
our trees in Emeryville. To me, mature trees are a real asset and make a
tremendous difference in the feel of a place, the quality of life, and in the
property values. I would much rather live on a street with tall, healthy trees,
than without. We all know it takes years to allow trees to reach their full maturity, and
patience!
Emeryville passed an Urban Forestry Ordinance (UFO) in 2003 and updated it in the past couple of years, but it alone
is not enough. It is up to the decision-makers in town to remember the time
required for trees to mature, and to value those trees more than saving a
developer money. We all know that clearing a parcel before building is cheaper.
We know that designing a park on a blank piece of paper is easier. But it is
simply not worth it!
Trees can be preserved and incorporated into new
developments in Emeryville, and the Planning Commissioners and the City Council
members are the ones who can make that a priority. I hope that staff will also
encourage or require developers to consider existing trees in their plans, but
until they do, it is the appointed and elected members of the Commission and
Council who must protect the community from the continual cutting down of
mature trees.
The UFO has some good protections in place. Now folks must
pay a penalty when street trees are cut down. Now developers are required to replace the
cumulative circumference of trees cut down with new trees (which can be hard to do
with limited space for all those trees, but encourages planting large replacement trees). But the City is exempt from the UFO. The City doesn’t HAVE
to follow these rules. And as a result the city has been inconsistent in the
application of the UFO.
At Parkside (formerly PaperMill) on Stanford between Doyle and Hollis, more than 40 mature trees
are being removed as part of a project building 164 apartments. I cannot vote on this item as it is close to my residence,
but I feel that no public body properly considered alternatives to cutting
down these trees. We were shown a design for a new park and commented on
details, glad to see something other than a parking lot! Yes, there were public
community meetings, and no one asked for the trees to be preserved. There were
study sessions at the Planning Commission, and no one asked for the trees to be
preserved. The council considered the Park Design in February 2012, and no one
asked for the trees to be preserved. The arborist report (prepared after the
community meetings and the Planning Commission approvals and which was not required
because the City doesn’t have to follow the UFO), was commissioned by the
Developer Archstone. It had 2 sections removed from the report by suggestion of
the City staff: 1. the value of the trees slated for removal and 2. the steps
needed to preserve the existing trees. I think that those sections should have
been retained. At least for the City to know in monetary terms what is being
taken away by the development proceeding according to the plans, and to help all decision makers and the public know what is feasible in terms of preservation.
 |
| These are the 20 year old trees to be removed for a park |
When I spoke to a member of the community who attended the
public meetings, I heard that no one in attendance had mentioned, talked about, or asked about
the removal of all the trees on the site. All comments were focused on the new
park plan – no one even thought about considering what is currently there. Not the City staff or the developer. She, too, is
excited about the new park, but devastated to think that all the mature trees
are being cut down to build it.
This developer was asked to build a public park as a
condition of approval for the City. Good for the city to ask for something back
for the community! But next time, ask for a park WITH the existing
trees incorporated into the design! No one did, and we didn’t get a park with
mature trees – we will get a lovely park with brand new trees and wait 20 years
for them to grow to be like the trees that are there now.
Please consider the following points as new development
projects come forward:
- What trees are already on the site? Can they be preserved? What is their value?
- Ask for more benefits from private developers, even if it might increase the cost of the project.
- Visit the site and look at what is there now.
- Require the City to follow its own UFO unless it is an emergency situation.
- Post notices on all trees to be removed, and do so early in the process, before plans have been settled on.
- Get our City Arborist to review private arborist reports.
- Use the fund we have created under the UFO to maintain and preserve existing trees and to plant new trees.
If we have the foresight to do right by trees in Emeryville,
20, 30, and 50 years from now the residents and people who work in Emeryville
will thank us!
