Albany resident and UC employee Brian Parsley wrote a commentary on the university’s tree-cutting plan on the Gill Tract:
I am an Albany resident who is also a UC employee. I am responding as a resident and not a spokesperson for the University. I find it interesting that mayor Lieber believes that not all the trees on UC Property need to come down. He has previously stated that he intends to “slow down” the process of the infected trees removal even though they may pose a hazard to people and property on nearby sidewalks and streets. It might serve the mayor to defer these matters to city staff before making comments to the press.
Tony Wolcott, Albany’s Master arborist, said he has seen the trees, and agreed with university that they were diseased and needed to be removed. He states “There isn’t any sense in trying to save any of them. They’re going to die. The pine pitch canker is pretty devastating. There’s not anything that we can do as far as curing the problem. From a public safety point of view, they should come out.” He also stated that the trees that weren’t infected should be removed as they might not be accustomed to the wind with the other trees gone and that might lead to failure of those trees.
While the loss of 300 trees is saddening I think I might defer to the experts on this matter and I believe any intentional ‘slowing down’ of the process could be putting the public in danger.
Albany Today 
Thanks for Brian Parsley for his well-reasoned post about Mayor Lieber’s response to the proposed tree-cutting at the Gill Tract.
I, too, am an Albany resident and UC employee. Further, I worked at the Division of Biological Control at the Gill Tract at the very site that is the focus of recent posting and I took a class from the professor of gentics who had those trees planted.
The trees were not very high when we would take our lunch and sit on the bumpy, lumpy ground between the tidy rows. For those of us who were studying conservation and the environment, the trees were considered nothing more than a research experiment, which is exactly what they were. They were planted to yield data – not for aesthetics – so to now wish to preserve spindly, diseased trees that have outlived their scientific use and which now can pose a hazard, seems more than illogical. Making decisions based upon “belief” rather than fact, is not what I expect from city office holders. Let us please return to reasoned discourse and rational decision-making – something for which Albany, with its highly educated populace, is known.
Monterey pines aren’t particular attractive or happy (in the cohabitating with people sense) trees, generally, as far as I understand. Here’s what Sunset Magazine has to say, though it’s noting that they may fare better in coastal California than anywhere else: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1216/is_v175/ai_4040265
But here’s a suggestion: Albany turns 100 this year. Let’s replant that area of the Gill tract, not with wildflowers (since, heck, wildflowers might easily be bulldozed for some sort of expansion of development… let’s help UC avoid that temptation) but with 100 coastal redwoods. Sure, they take a long, long time to mature, but no time like now to start, then. And for Albany’s bicentennial, we’d have a majestic grove of stately redwoods.
Ross here’s the problem with that plan. It is UC Berkeley property. If they want to develop that land there is a process for that. If it’s non-educational they must jump through the same hoops any other land owner would. I think this is part of the problem we’re having in Albany right now. Some folks seem to believe that they’re entitled to other people’s properties and it’s OK if we take it because we’re doing it in the name of the environment. It doesn’t matter if it’s Magna or UC it’s not our property.
Ross what if they came to your neighborhood and started making plans for an organic farm but the only problem is they were going to have to kick you all out first? Oh and by the way we don’t have the money to purchase your land, we just want you to give it to us.
While I agree there are many things to complain about with UC (I should know I’ve worked for them for 15 years) they have been generally a good neighbor. Maybe the residents of Albany don’t know the land that city hall sits on was part of the Gill Tract and sold to the city or that the land ocean view school sits on was sold to the school district by UC. The little league ball fields in the village is leased to Albany little league for the sum of $1 dollar per year. That’s same price that is charged to Albany Children’s Center, an Albany Unified School District child care program housed in 2 buildings in the village. Not to mention the city used to say its low income housing was in the village and without UC the much celebrated diversity in this city would be non-existent.
Ross you have interesting suggestion, but here’s a better one. Let’s bulldoze city hall and the police and fire departments as well as Buchanan Street between Jackson and San Pablo. All that land was part of the Gill land trust and sold to the city. Now I may be wrong but I thought the trust stated that land was for agricultural use only. Is the city council prepared to return that land to its natural state? I think not.
Oh, I know that the Gill Tract is UC property; that said, there’s the tension between the property owner (with special status, as a state-chartered non-profit entity, vis-a-vis taxes and such) and the voters, w.r.t. approval of new development. (I also worked for UC, too, alberit briefly: one year at UCOP.)
I’ve heard bits and pieces of the planning, re UC’s properties, e.g., that there’s a proposal for a Whole Foods on San Pablo, a few blocks south of Marin; I guess I’m more saying that, in toto, it’d be nice if concessions to UC requests (e.g., to create a new commercial zone on San Pablo) be balanced with collaborations like replacement of the Gill Tract grove with something other than more buildings, or a field that would be ill-matched by the adjacent properties (that current grove, albeit of apparently sick trees, is a very nice screen and separater).
I am sure that Mayor Lieber is speaking for the majority of Albany residents when he asks the University to slow down the rush to log the Gill tract trees and to engage the community in looking at alternatives. The Gill Tract trees are one of the most recognizable features of Albany. Like Albany Hill they help define the community. I know I am home after a trip when I see the Gill tract trees. UC has had long term plans to develop the entire Gill tract property. Removing the trees removes one more potential roadblock to the development of the entire property. The trees have been on the property over 40 years and we now face a crisis that requires the removal of 200 trees now?
What is lacking is a comprehensive plan for the entire property. A close look at the tree removal, the radioactive cleanup needs, the future Whole Foods shopping center proposed for San Pablo Avenue, the future of the Little League fields and the broader issue of open space on the Gill Tract. UC is acting as a private developer and with that comes the responsibility to consider the needs and opinions of Albany residents.
[…] Brian Parkerwrote a commentary on the controversy over UC’s tree-cutting plan, responding to a previous post on Albany […]
Dear Mr. Parker,
Having grown up on Marin watching those trees grow I can not think why anyone would call them a landmark.
I know it is going to be hard on Mr. Lieber dealing with UC but that is what is going to happen. After having grown up in Berkeley I can assure you that I feel sorry for all of us when UC finishes whatever monster they want to put there.
I quote: “Then, we must smile at our swaggering arborist “experts” giving testimony at the city council meeting. Where have these responsible arborists been over the last 20 years? Not a single pine limb trimmed. Not a single pine tree thinned out to allow the others to grow stronger. And this in a property in plain view across the street from the City Hall.
One outspoken so-called expert hadn’t even taken the time to strut the 20 or 30 steps required to actually look at the Gill Tract trees; yet, he was certain they must all be cut down immediately, sight unseen.”
“The Gill Tract trees must be an embarrassment to the professional tree people who committed tree negligence on University property. Albany shouldn’t suffer the loss of a gem of an urban forest to cover up arborist negligence per se.”
I found out about this web site on 1/31/08. I’m the “outspoken, strutting, swaggering so-called arborist expert” I added the previous 3 paragraphs because I wanted to make sure I quoted this IDIOT accurately. I may have swaggered due to forces out of my control. I wouldn’t know as that would be in the eye of the beholder. But you, sir, have developed your knack for lying and smearing intentionally over a lifetime.
“Where have these responsible arborists been over the last 20 years?” You ask?
I’ll tell you where I’ve been, Mr. Dann. I’ve been minding my own business, consulting on pathogenic disorders and structural stability issues pertaining to trees and shrubs. I’ve been selling my services, to whomever invited me onto their property. Hopefully, I helped them resolve certain plant issues. I can’t even begin to count the number of trees I have prevented from being cut down over the years due to my having formulated a stronger argument against the removal. How about yourself?
I know you probably have a hard time comprehending such a simple concept as being invited on to someone’s property to perform a service. I’ve been aware of your hostile takeover attempts at Golden Gate Fields, the Gill Tract; and the way you smear anyone who disagrees with you. You obviously feel it’s an arborist’s duty to invite oneself on to someone else’s property (as long as it’s not your own, of course); and begin tree trimming/removal operations without permission. I believe in private property rights. A fundamental difference between you and me, Mr. Dann.
You instigated this smear knowing absolutely nothing about me. I realize at the outset that no amount of reason will sway you. You are a ZEALOT! You didn’t think that I would ever respond to your smarmy little smear attempt. Wrong! This is where your radical politics and your means to achieve those ends stops; and where practical, analytical, reasonable and responsible solutions to a potentially devastating problem begin.
I watched a repeat of the City Council meeting you were referring to, and it was clear I never said any of the things you attributed to me. What is abundantly clear, after analyzing what you said, is that you know absolutely nothing about trees in general and even more than absolutely nothing when it comes to the hazards harbored by coniferous trees, i.e., pathogens such as Fusarium, Armillaria, Stereum, Endocronartium, Coleosporium, Fomes, Cryptoporus, etc.. Yeah I know, you don’t have the foggiest idea of what I just said. That leads me to my main point. Stick with what you know, that way you won’t give me the opportunity to make a fool out of you.
I never used the term “Expert” in referring to myself; you did. Thank you, by the way, for your confidence in my abilities. I’m sure I am completely off base in assuming you meant that as a slur.
I admitted at the outset (at the meeting) I had not visited the Gill Tract, and that I was responding to an article in the Albany Journal. In that article, two professional arborists, each paid for their expertise, each from opposing sides, concluded that the trees posed a significant danger to the public. I simply stated that, since Mr. Cody from UC and Albany City Arborist, Mr. Wolcott, (in my opinion each representing the best interests of the citizens of Albany), agreed on this danger, that there must be a logical reason for their meeting of the minds. I never stated that the trees have to be taken down immediately. I would never make a statement like that because, as I said before, I have never been on that property, remember? To put this as diplomatically as possible, you made that up out of whole cloth. Shame on you, Mr. Dann. It’s time for you to go stand in the corner, and don’t move until I tell ya.
I took the advice of a lady who spoke after me at the 1/22/08 City Council meeting, and visited the site recently on 1/31/08. I was stunned at the hazardous degree of decay permeating the stand of Monterey pines. In my opinion, as a professional arborist, the city of Albany would be certifiably insane to try and stop the University from moving ahead to reduce this very real hazard. This stand of trees was in far worse condition than what I had expected to find. It has since come to my attention that at least 3 other arborists are also in agreement with the other “experts.” I know you don’t think anyone else is an expert at anything besides yourself. I know that expertise, facts and empirical evidence are little insignificant details that don’t make any difference to you. You are a ZEALOT!
Since I have recently seen this pine stand first hand; and since I am in full agreement with the experts’ opinions, I am confident that the City of Albany will keep the best interests of its citizens in mind.
I understand an Albany City Councilwoman, after seeing the site first hand, changed her mind on her original vote to push forward with a potential lawsuit. It sounds like the people who know what they’re talking about, or at least trying to be reasonable, are taking the proper steps to solve this very understandably touchy issue. As I stated at the meeting, “I love trees, that’s why I’m in the business.” However, you sir, twisted what I said, and then scribbled down what you wanted to hear. If there was any other logical way to deal with this issue, while keeping public safety at the forefront, I would be all ears. No one should ever take advice from you, because you are a ZEALOT Remember?
I apologize ahead of time to any “professional tree people” who would not want to be included in the following statement: None of us were “negligent” or feel the experimental plot of Monterey pines planted in the early sixties at the University of California experimental field station is an “embarrassment” in any way. I sleep like a baby. Sorry to disappoint you. I have added this disclaimer, because I know it is not my right to be speaking for other professional tree people. You, sir, willingly chose to smear all of us (and particularly me) without the slightest knowledge of what you were talking about or who we were. I know that a lot of valuable research on pine pathogens and genetic resistance to such was documented. I commend the plant pathologists who conducted this research. Unfortunately this experimental plot of trees has come to its physiological end and major action needs to be taken.
I hope I got my point across. If so, you don’t have to stand in the corner any longer; but go to your room. I won’t have any discourse with you in the future unless we run into each other at a City Council meeting where a subject I know something about is being discussed. I realize that you cannot have a rational discussion with an irrational person. If you had any character at all, you could very easily have contacted me to find out in more detail why I felt the way I did. Better yet, you could have approached me at the City Council meeting. We could have discussed the issue like two grown men, and then parted ways with the understanding that we have opposing viewpoints and hopefully no hard feelings. You blew that opportunity. You chose to hide behind a computer screen and assault my character knowing absolutely nothing about me. That’s the coward’s way out. Have a nice day. See you around Mr. Dann.