Negotiation between the University of California at Berkeley and the city of Albany is going on as the 184 diseased Monterey pines at the Gill Tract in Albany are being cut down. Photo by Linjun Fan.
The University of California at Berkeley agreed to satisfy several of Albany’s requests on its tree-cutting project at the Gill Tract, including surveying the site for hawk nests and testing the trees for radioactive materials, but refused to make commitment on replanting trees.
The City of Albany withdrew its opposition to the removal of 184 diseased Monterey pines at the tract last week, but gave the university a list of requests* in the meantime.
Under Albany’s request, the university has sent a wildlife biologist to the tract, who didn’t find active nests of Cooper’s Hawks there.
“We will continue to monitor the site for nests as the tree removal proceeds, ” said Edward Denton, Vice Chancellor of the university, in a letter to Albany City Administrator Beth Pollard Wednesday.
Denton didn’t promise to plant new trees after the removal, however, saying that replanting trees might conflict with a development plan for the tract and the nearby University Village.
“As you know, the 2004 University Village Master Plan must guide our consideration of all future uses on the Gill Tract site, ” Denton wrote in the letter.
The Gill Tract will be developed into housing units and recreation facilities for the university’s faculty and graduate students, according to the master plan. It’s not clear whether the site of the pine grove, located northeast of the tract, will be part of the development.
Albany asked to use part of the site as a tree nursery for its parks and streets. Denton responded that it’s possible to allow Albany to do so “on a temporary basis” .
Albany also asked the university to ease a portion of the land for building a bicycle path along the Buchanan Street. Denton said that the university has already sent a letter of support when Albany was applying for a funding to study the plan in 2006.
“We are ready to discuss with city staff any issues regarding the path, ” Denton said.
He also agreed to notify Albany at least two months in advance of cutting down another 133 Monterey pines at the tract, adding that the removal of these trees hasn’t been scheduled.
Albany requested the university to test the trees for the radioactive materials of tritium and carbon 14, which were used for research in a university lab on the tract.
Denton promised to conduct such a test after the tree removal, but described the materials as “naturally occurring in the area”.
Click here to read the full text of the letter written by Denton.
*The City of Albany made six requests to the University of California on the tree-cutting project:
-
Conduct a bird survey prior to Phase I tree removal, including the possible presence of nests or mating pairs of Cooper’s Hawks, and provide documentation to the City; if nests or mating pairs are found, meet regulations and standards for tree removal for bird and bird habitat protection purposes
-
Provide the City with a statement of intent regarding the replacement of trees on this property; such statement should include a commitment to confer with the City on a replanting plan and to develop a University funding plan
-
Enter into negotiations with the City for City use of right-of-way along Buchanan Street for installation of a future Class I bicycle and pedestrian path.
-
Explore arrangements for allowing the City to use a portion of the property for storing nursery stock trees for future use in city parks, or as street trees
-
Perform sample testing among the trees removed for the presence of tritium and carbon 14.
-
Work with the City, at least two months in advance, regarding any decision to proceed with Phase II tree removal.
Albany Today 
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 2 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.
The City of Albany could soon lose 400 trees: 317 pines at the Gill Tract and 83 trees along the Bart tracks (Option A). During this age of increased greenhouse gas and global warming, shouldn’t we be adding rather than reducing the number of trees in Albany?
As refered to in the letter to the City Administrator from the UC Vice Chancellor, replacement of trees along San Pablo Avenue on UC Berkeley property was considered as a mitigation measure in the 2004 Focused EIR Master Plan Amendments (see page 84).
Prior to the amendments, UCB provided that “if specimen trees must be removed
they would be replaced with the same species on the project site.”
In 2004 on the Gill Tract, UCB recognized that many of the trees to be removed from the site were planted for experimental purposes (e.g., Monterey Pines), thus this mitigation measure was revised and incorporated into the proposed amended Landscape Policy 6-5, which states:
“Avoid the removal of specimen trees where feasible. When removal of a
specimen tree is necessary, either move the tree, or if this is not
possible, replace the tree in a nearby location and follow a maintenance
program for five years to ensure that the replacement trees survive.
Replacement trees should be selected from species native or naturalized
to the region, and suitable for the biotic zone and planned land use
for their respective locations.”
What, then, is a specimen tree? According to the UCB website set up to answer questions about the removal of oak and other trees at the football stadium, a specimen tree is an old established tree that is substantial (a subjective standard). One might well argue that at least one or two of the Monterey pines on the Gill Tract are “specimen trees” that require replacement nearby.
In the same FAQ website for the UC football stadium, the cost of replacing a specimen tree is estimated at a whopping $800 each. (See also Richard Trout’s fine website nearby to save UCB specimen trees.)
In 2004, UC was planning a big block of 5 story mixed use apartments along San Pablo Ave. Now, in 2008, UC will again revise the EIR Master Plan to plan instead for a Whole Foods, parking structure, and senior assisted living along San Pablo Avenue.
By then all the Monterey pines will likely have been removed from the Gill Tract. In the new mitigations, we should not forget that 317 pines were cut down on this site. Further, the same considerations in the 2004 Focused amendments should survive in the new amendments; such as, protection of trees, hawks, frogs, monarchs, trout, etc. Both the Village and Codornices Creeks on the property now have protection zones.
The City of Albany City Council, staff, and community members did well to obtain concessions from UCB as listed in the Vice Chancellor’s letter. Passions ran high. Citizens who took the time and effort to attend City Council meetings and speak out on civic matters deserve our mutual respect and civility.
One place we might direct our attention and expertise is to consider planting new trees at the Albany Bulb on our waterfront.
UC refuses to make commitment to Albany on replanting trees
Bill Dann says in essence:
The city of Albany could soon loose 317 trees at the gill tract. “During this age of global warming shouldn’t we be adding rather than reducing the number of trees in Albany? “
The 2004 master plan amendment states that if a specimen tree is removed from UC property it must be replaced with the same species. He then goes on to argue that perhaps a couple of the trees would fit that categorization.
Observation #1: In my opinion as a certified arborist; No Monterey pine from the Gill Tract deserves or will receive specimen tree protection. That would be a complete perversion of the well deserved Heritage Tree preservation ordinances that most major cities now have.
Observation #2: If you are going to use the global warming canard, which is used when every other ploy doesn’t work, than you have to add up the combined biomass (actual C02 absorbing leaf surface) of these so-called 317 trees. In my professional opinion, you might end up with perhaps 10- 15 (not 317) sickly, normal sized, 45 year old Monterey pines, which are not growing in their native coastal environment. Wether it’s a more accurate 10-15 or the 317 as counted, its all moot because they are dead and dying.
Observation #3: In my opinion, the entire stand is in decline. 90% of the Gill Tract trees are dead or in an irreversibly strained condition. Strain is a technical term which basically means that no human intervention is going to be able to return these trees to a vigorous state. The other 10% will never be able to survive due to the disruption of the grove for to many reasons to get into. Bottom line, is that these trees, growing on an experimental plot, on UC Berkeley property, were never intended to become an urban forest. People who have no legal or moral right, have adopted this stand as their own. These trees are at the end of their physiological life span. Many are in such an advanced state of decay, that they would be placed in the imminent danger of falling category. That is the category where negligence lawsuits become a concern.
Observation #4: Some refer to this plot as a gem of an urban forest without mentioning who owns the forest. As a certified arborist I would categorize this property as a now defunct experimental plot of dead, dying and decayed trees, in danger of falling into the most heavily traveled intersection in Albany. As an Albany citizen, I would refer you to my previous statement and add that; this land, at brief intervals, has been a temporary home for monarch butterflies and a few coopers hawks. It is also a noticeable greenspace across the street from city hall. Many of us have enjoyed this view over the years. However, it is on University of California property, and that is their trump card. I fully endorse their option to play this card, as I would endorse your constitutional right to invite whomever you want into your home with out others interfering.
Observation #5: Using bully eminent domain type tactics, would in all likelihood, return you nothing but an unwillingness of UC Berkeley to want to negotiate with the city on almost any level. You shouldn’t be trying to tell them what they should do with they’re own property. Instead, how about thanking them, for allowing us to have the enjoyment of that short term experimental plot, for far longer than it was ever intended.
Observation #6: Trees are being added within the Albany city limits on a daily basis on both public and private properties.
Observation #7: You are not going to see the C02 levels in the city of Albany rise one significant iota. Global warming is not a recent event. The earth’s temperatures have been rising and falling for billions of years, and will continue to do so. If it makes you feel good, to reduce your carbon footprint by making adjustments to your everyday lifestyle, more power to you. I would even say it’s commendable. Just don’t mandate that I join you in your concerns. In my opinion, the sky is not falling.
Observation #8: What would happen if the ever so evil and diabolical University of California (my interpretation of opinions I heard ad nauseam at the 1/22/08 City Council meeting) decided to actually follow through with one of the handful of conspiracy theories, such as to allow a Whole Foods to be built on their property. It would of course have to pass or fail on its own merits in accordance with Albany zoning restrictions. But just think of all the carbon emissions the globe would be spared from, by Albany folks not having to drive to Berkeley, to go grocery shopping at the (currently closest) Whole Foods.
On a more sane note, think of the sales tax receipts which would be added to the City’s coffers. Perhaps that money could actually be spent fixing the storm drain fiasco that has been haunting the more than patient, saint-like people in the Neilson/Curtis street areas for the last decade or so.
Observation #9: What is a more pressing, potential catastrophe? It’s that some unsuspecting pedestrian or vehicle could be injured, killed or damaged by a falling, decayed Monterey pine tree; not being swallowed up by a 30 foot wall of seawater, due to the icecaps melting, in I believe, 2043 or somewhere there abouts!
I would like to thank Brian Parsley for his kind words in reference to me, his provably accurate description of Mr. Dann, who I completely agree with, and for his accurate interpretation concerning the unfounded dislike (to put it mildly) of UC Berkeley that permeated that 1/22/08 Council meeting. I too have family members who have or are now working for UCB and they would not agree with the ignorant characterizations hurled from the audience. I never heard anyone actually state why they feel this way, so until I hear otherwise, I will choose to defend my statements.
THE QUOTE OF THE YEAR:
“To spread fear and distrust without knowing the facts” Well said Mr. Parsley!
P:S: Does anyone know of a good weather channel? I hav’nt been able to get an accurate forecast more than 24 hours in advance?
Email to Text
Email to Text