The Streetscape statement sounds like a lot of bogus backpedaling. They are more concerned about commerce than they are of community. Those kiosks will be a beautiful addition to this gutted landscape, he said sarcastically. How disappointing and typical of a local governance. Shame on them.

First, a BIG THANK YOU for the tweets, the info, the website, your time and the petition.

Second, I wrote Alex Nguyen asking where I could find the meeting minutes / outcomes of last night’s meeting and he replied:

Subject: Park Street Tree Meeting
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:24:35 -0800

Dear Stephanie:

Minutes were not taken at last night’s community meeting.

We will be posting an update at the city website with the outcomes from the meeting and next steps.

It should be up next Monday or Tuesday.

Please contact me if you have any immediate questions.

Sincerely,

Alexander Nguyen
Deputy City Manager
City of Alameda, CA

Just thought you might like to know. Have a nice night and thanks again for all that you have done so far.

-Stephanie

It was enlightening and well attended. And to repeat what I said last night, in the future the public should not just be informed in advance of a public tree’s removal. The public should be given advance notice of the City’s intention to remove a tree, and the public should then be given the chance to stop it if that is what the majority of the citizens would prefer happen. Also, after the meeting I spoke with someone at a Park St. neighborhood business about the meeting. What I was told then in combination to what was said at the meeting brought a new aspect to the haste with which the trees were cut down. Recent CALTRANS funding approval that required using the funds before a deadline next year seems to have a lot to do with why these trees were hurriedly cut down all at once, when that is not how the project description said things would happen. It had basically said that only trees that were in bad health or causing safety issues would be replaced over time, not all at once. And, the discussion of the contractor bid process and changes regarding “bulb outs” was also enlightening. Early during the meeting the City representatives were trying to say that Phase 2 had some changes and updates after public feedback against the Phase 1 “bulb outs”. Later in the meeting it came to light that the deletion of “bulb outs” in Phase 2 was really the result of cost, budget, and funding amount issues, and also costs to the “risk management” department because of people whose cars had been damaged by hitting the “bulb outs”. And one public attendee also questioned how there had been a unilateral decision by City staffers to delete “bulb outs” from Phase 2 if they were specified in the “approved” and “vetted” plan. My friends, fellow Alameda residents and I, all thought the bulb outs were insane and a nuisance when they first started appearing on both Park and Webster Streets. The only “bulb outs” that I think have any value are the ones that serve as bus stops. How the streetscape plan was initiated, approved and vetted were also called in to question. It sounds as if the City Council was never given a full description of what was intended with the streetscape plan, and only limited details were submitted for “consent” by the Council.
What happened to the trees on Park Street was horrific, mishandled completely, depressing, etc. It can’t be reversed. What can be changed are the policies within the City government and departments, to ensure that nothing like this ever happens again, that true public input is sought (not just a small group on committees), that there is sufficient advance notice to the public to voice their concerns and stop undesired actions such as this, and also to fix the City and departmental approval procedures. So much was overlooked by those involved, five years went by since any true public notice was last given, the way it happened last month was not even in accordance to what was “approved”. The few remaining mature trees on Park St. need to be saved. If they are healthy, they should be trimmed and have the Phase 3 of the new “streetscape” include them in the design and implementation. There was a lot of damage control, “spin”, etc. last night. The majority there were trying to work towards solving the situation now in the best manner, and the meeting was very civil, but more distressing facts came out during the discussion.
The whole nature and character of the city of Alameda and its residents, and why we chose to live here rather than some plastic box “developed” community, was overlooked in this process. There is no excuse for how this went down. I am afraid that some of my comments last night were incomplete as I don’t always finish my thoughts when I am speaking, especially when my feathers are ruffled. When I lived in San Francisco I saw City of SF notices posted on the trees in my neighborhood near the St. Francis Hospital letting the public know the hospital’s intention of cutting down the trees to make bigger driveways on three sides of the large city block. I put up posters all over the neighborhood and encouraged my neighbors to come to the public Planning Commission hearing, and apparently plenty of other people took action as well. I took the day off work to attend the meeting and there were many other people there as well to speak up against the trees removal. Our actions helped spare the majority of those trees, and the few that were removed had to be replaced in other parts of the blocks per the City’s instructions to the hospital. I spent a lot of time researching the issue of urban trees during that period. There are reasons that there are laws in place so that people cannot chop down trees willy-nilly. The urban canopy of trees contributes to a healthy environment.
“Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually — or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles.” [from Nowak, David J., “Benefits of Community Trees”, (Brooklyn Trees, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, in review) via http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm We have now lost part of our tree canopy and it will take many years to replace, along with really harming the beauty and feel of one of our main business areas that is enjoyed by many, now full of people saddened by the loss of the beautiful trees.

Just for clarity, the Council was unanimous in its approval of this plan, DeHaan did not dissent, he voted for it. Twice.