Back in May, the Tree Commission had a special meeting on Cannery. At that time, it was reported in the minutes, “The project site was tree surveyed in April of 2012. 365 trees were surveyed. Due to tree condition, being located in building footprints, and a new water line installation, 32 trees are proposed for retention. The retained trees are located mainly along the eastern property line and along the existing buffer between the project site and Covell Boulevard.”
The minutes of the meeting indicate that commissioners were concerned that just 9 percent of all trees on the site will be retained. According to a couple of commissioners who asked not to go on the record, roughly 900 trees would be removed.
At the same time, the project will be planting about 4100 trees. This includes public and private trees. Of those, about 2400 trees will be planted on public lands.
A letter from Tree Commissioner Laura Westrop has been circulating around the community.
She writes: “We are in the 11th hour in providing comment on a very complex development proposal involving The Cannery, specifically as it relates to the proposed removal of all but 9% of the mature trees. I have met with or spoken to all five City Council members and they have each expressed their hope – and provided direction at the October 22, 2013 City Council meeting – to City staff that they should work with the development team to creatively work in to the development plans more than just the retention of 32 trees.
“The development team is proposing planting 4,071 trees as mitigation for the removal 91% of the urban forest. The concern I have for this is that eventually the city will have to maintain these young trees (water, irrigation add to pruning cycle etc) and more importantly in my opinion, they do not replace the benefits mature trees provide such as raptor nesting sites, wildlife habitat, shade, carbon absorption, aesthetic benefits, green buffer etc.
“The development team has expressed a willingness to accept a three year endowment after the new trees are planted for their care and upkeep, but in my opinion, the retention of as many of the mature trees would be a much better option.”
“Here are the facts as I understand them,” Ms. Westrup continued. “The Cannery was closed in 1999. There are 382 mature trees on the site; 111 of which are valley oaks. Most of the trees are located along the perimeter of the property, primarily the western boundary adjacent to the Railroad tracks, on the southern boundary adjacent to Covell Boulevard and along the eastern property adjacent to the active farmed area.”
“There are some smaller trees in the drainage area near the back of the property. The development team is proposing removing more than 90% of the trees to accommodate the footprint of proposed roads, buildings and other infrastructure,” she continued.
The Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the City Council: “Where feasible, retain all Valley Oak trees that are in fair condition. Decisions to approve tree removal shall be made on a case-by-case basis during final design review, reflecting condition of tree, grading requirements, and site configuration.”
Dr. Greg McPherson is a Davis resident who works with the USDA Forest Service.
He writes, “When land like The Cannery site is developed, conserving trees, especially large trees, can reduce the carbon foorprint by maximizing carbon storage and sequestration. Also, retaining trees can enhance wildlife, protect water quality, improve air quality and contribute to sense of place.”
“There are 382 trees on The Cannery site, north of Covell Boulevard at J Street, with only 32 slated for retention. The greenhouse gas plan for the development doesn’t note that these trees store approximately 890 metric tonnes (t) of carbon, will sequester 66 t each year, or the fate of the carbon they store if removed,” Dr. McPherson continues. “Nor does it consider the full life cycle emissions associated with growing, transporting, planting and maintaining the 3,000 transplants proposed as mitigation. And it will take many years for transplants to achieve the size and functionality of existing trees, assuming they survive.
“The good news is that many of these are healthy, mature trees that can be preserved without sacrificing dwelling units. Trees along the western boundary provide a natural buffer that screens the railroad tracks. Trees along the eastern boundary can be thinned to provide light to the gardens while retaining the mature valley oaks and cedars. Some of the best specimens along the southern boundary can be incorporated in the design, so that their shade reduces summer air temperatures and saves energy,” he writes.
Dr. McPherson concludes, “I urge the developers, City Council members and community to think of these trees as a community asset, not a disposable commodity to be instantly replaced with a better product. Trees such as these are a legacy we can leave for the benefit of future generations.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A phrase that has frequently been seen on these posts recently has been win-win. Here is a real opportunity
for that outcome.
I do not favor the Cannery project for safety, environmental, and health reasons which I have already stated.
However, if this project does go forward, the preservation of healthy mature trees would seem like an obviously desirable goal.
I agree with medwoman.
This analysis should include the deforestation of the southern embankment of the earthen ramp that gets Covell Blvd. up to the elevation necessary to bridge over the railroad tracks. Construction of the poor bike path route the developer is proposing will require them to remove virtually all the trees that are south of Covell on the east side of the tracks. Those dozens of trees help stabilize the embankment that supports the roadway, they provide a visual barrier protecting the privacy of the apartment occupants below, they absorb pollutants and process carbon emissions, and they reduce the noise impacts of the busy street by diffusing sound waves and deflecting sound upward. They are off-site, but the developer’s desire is to reach onto City property and take out this forested slope as well.
“they do not replace the benefits mature trees provide such as raptor nesting sites, wildlife habitat, shade, carbon absorption, aesthetic benefits, green buffer etc.”
Are there raptors?
Yes, save the trees.
“Those dozens of trees help stabilize the embankment that supports the roadway, they provide a visual barrier protecting the privacy of the apartment occupants below, they absorb pollutants and process carbon emissions, and they reduce the noise impacts of the busy street by diffusing sound waves and deflecting sound upward.”
Stacy, thank you for this information. It’s nice that someone is considering the (relatively)lower income apartment dwellers in this discussion.
[quote]Construction of the poor bike path route the developer is proposing will require them to remove virtually all the trees that are south of Covell on the east side of the tracks.[/quote]
To clarify, this is the path the developer wants, but not the one the Bicycle Commission is backing?
when i read stuff like this i get angry. i don’t like the idea of conagra doing a housing development, i don’t like the idea of city staff bowing down before developers and keeping this stuff hidden. the tree commission meeting was held in may, we find out in november. there is something wrong here.
The Tree Commission meets in public. If you didn’t know about it until now blame the media.
When I see “111 of them are Valley oaks” I suspect the mitigation is nowhere near the actual value of the trees being removed. A certified arborist (such as Dr. Greg McPherson) can use a standard method for assessing the value of those trees. It is far higher than the replacement cost.
I’m frequently asked to give insurance evaluations for trees damaged or killed. As a nursery professional I can tell someone the cost of the biggest size used for replacement. But invariably an arborist can assess the value of the tree using ISA standards, so I usually refer for that purpose. Valley oaks are high value trees. Depending on their location and condition, each could be worth many thousands of dollars (that’s as specific as I’m going to get; I’m not qualified). Other tree species may be of lower value.
Bottom line is that ConAgra may not be paying what they should for this, and might be more inclined to save more of the trees if they were assessed at their true value.
mr. toad: i think you’re being too forgiving. for months now we have seen that certain things have happened in private. in fact, you have called out the member of the oshc for that very reason. i’m not calling out the members of the tree commission, but something smells here. i think staff is hiding the ball. and that’s not right.
Didn’t the Tree Commission vote unanimously for the project?
they claim they were coerced by staff… or so the word is.
This is why people end up feeling we have to vote on every darn thing. The developers are showing their true colors here, ready to remove all those trees and not caring. Everything they do has to be watched like a hawk or this is what would happen, those trees would have been gone. They really showed who they are in this, of course what would we expect from developers. And city staff is often complacent or worse.
New trees are just twigs, total surface area would be a much better comparison. The expert above has it right on, SAVE THE TREES, not even only the oaks.
[quote]they claim they were coerced by staff… or so the word is.[/quote]
I assuming this isn’t their official reason. Which begs the question, what was their official justification for their support of the developers plan to remove these tree’s?
I agree completely with Donna, and I think Don Shor is right about the need to find out the monetary value of those trees. I wish I had more time to devote to Davis politics; but I don’t at the moment. I’m thankful for those of you who will, can and do watch developers/city politics like hawks.
“This is why people end up feeling we have to vote on every darn thing. “
i agree.
Nora wrote:
> I agree completely with Donna, and I think Don Shor
> is right about the need to find out the monetary value
> of those trees.
If the owner of a tree (or a building) wants to move it somewhere else it has a very low value. The best way to find out the monetary value of something is to have an auction.
Steve Jobs could not find a buyer for his home in Woodside for $1 (who would move it an preserve it) and I’m betting that Con Agra will not be able to find anyone that wants to pay to move and replant the trees.
Sad that we have to assign a dollar amount to tree in order to discourage developers from needlessly cutting them down.
[quote]If the owner of a tree (or a building) wants to move it somewhere else it has a very low value. The best way to find out the monetary value of something is to have an auction. [/quote]
That is not how we assess the value of a tree. There is a system used regularly by arborists. Mature trees are sometimes moved at considerable cost (palms and olives, mostly), and I know contractors who do that. But that wouldn’t be the way to determine the value of an oak that is decades old.
I wrote:
> If the owner of a tree (or a building) wants to move it
> somewhere else it has a very low value. The best way to
> find out the monetary value of something is to have an
> auction.
Then Don wrote:
> That is not how we assess the value of a tree.
Have you (or anyone else in the “we” you are talking about) assessed the value of a tree that a property owner did not want (or wanted moved to another part of the property)?
> There is a system used regularly by arborists.
> Mature trees are sometimes moved at considerable
> cost (palms and olives, mostly), and I know contractors
> who do that.
So do I and the value of a good looking mature palm ready to move in Southern California is worth much more than a palm on Midway Island in the Pacific. My sister recently paid a lot of money to get rid of a (healthy big) palm tree (so it had a negative value) after she could not find anyone that would buy it or even take it away for less than the paid the guys that cut it down.
> But that wouldn’t be the way to determine the value
> of an oak that is decades old.
> An example from the east coast:
> http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/HO_201.pdf
The example assumes that the people want the tree. The shade trees in my backyard are worth a lot to me, but will be worth much to a new owner of the house that wants to build a pool.
The lumber industry has a way to determine the value of each tree (related to the number of board feet of lumber and material for other “forest products” they will get), but the value of an old growth redwood from the guys at Purdue, a forest products executive, a neighbor that wants more sun in their yard and an activist living in the tree will all be very different…
P.S. To David
I just noticed that the time stamps on the Blog have not “fallen back” from daylight savings time…
“Sad that we have to assign a dollar amount to tree in order to discourage developers from needlessly cutting them down.”
How else would you do it?
“How else would you do it? “
how do you measure intangible value?
[quote] The shade trees in my backyard are worth a lot to me, but will be worth much to a new owner of the house that wants to build a pool. [/quote]
They have a value that is irrelevant to the desire of the owner to keep them. In that particular instance, they confer a value to the property that would be lost if they were cut down. The pool presumably replaces some or all of that value.
The city has no difficulty assigning value to trees in their easements that the owners may not want to keep on their property. The value of the tree is not directly related to the owner’s preferences.
[quote]How else would you do it?[/quote]
How else would you do what? Not cut down tree’s unnecessarily? The simple answer is not cut down tree’s unnecessarily.
“How else would you do what? Not cut down tree’s unnecessarily? The simple answer is not cut down tree’s unnecessarily. “
i understand your point, but this isn’t going to end well. they’ll simply claim they’re all necessary.
[quote]”The good news is that many of these are healthy, mature trees that can be preserved without sacrificing dwelling units. Trees along the western boundary provide a natural buffer that screens the railroad tracks. Trees along the eastern boundary can be thinned to provide light to the gardens while retaining the mature valley oaks and cedars. Some of the best specimens along the southern boundary can be incorporated in the design, so that their shade reduces summer air temperatures and saves energy,” he writes.[/quote]
This is the key quote, IMO. This particular issue could be resolved if the developers work with experts on protecting the trees during construction and work them into the design. It’s always easier to cut down trees and pay for the mitigation, but at some greater expense they could save a large number of the important trees. Greg McPherson knows what he is talking about. If he says “many … can be preserved” then I believe it can be done.
[quote]i understand your point, but this isn’t going to end well. they’ll simply claim they’re all necessary.[/quote]
Or refer to any action to keep as “candy”.
Rochelle talked about this a little at the last council meeting. She was arguing that a significant number of the trees slated for removal could be saved and integrated into the developers existing plan. My comment is mainly in regards to these trees.
FWIW, when PG&E mistakenly cut down 5 oaks on city property recently (they thought the trees were in their easement, but they weren’t), they had to pay the city a pretty hefty sum — I think it was $15,000 per tree (though I might be misremembering). These were trees the city had planted in the bikeway west of Olive Drive, and I think they were in the 12″-diameter range. Anne Brunette has the details, if anyone wants to follow up.
[quote]FWIW, when PG&E mistakenly cut down 5 oaks on city property recently (they thought the trees were in their easement, but they weren’t), they had to pay the city a pretty hefty sum — I think it was $15,000 per tree (though I might be misremembering). These were trees the city had planted in the bikeway west of Olive Drive, and I think they were in the 12″-diameter range. Anne Brunette has the details, if anyone wants to follow up[/quote]
Why did they cut them down?
[quote]Local property manager illegally cuts down city trees, gets slammed with heavy fine
By Tom Sakash
From page A1 | November 23, 2012
Three city-owned trees near the turnaround on the far eastern point of Olive Drive were illegally cut down over the spring, prompting the city to drop a hefty fine on the property management company that ordered the removals.
The city fined Select Commercial Brokers, the company responsible for the work, $12,000 for chopping down two Chinese hackberries — one completely and one partially — and one coast live oak.
The city estimated the trees were worth about $40,000.
[/quote]
— Davis Enterprise, November 2012
[quote]Why did they cut them down? [/quote]
From what I recall, PG&E misidentified the location of their easement in that area and decided that the trees were in the way of the gas line replacement, so down they came.
As I recall Select Commercial Brokers didn’t pay the fine but settled somehow with the city. Its been a while.
The main point is that the value of those trees was $10,000 – $15,000 each, and hackberries aren’t as valuable as oaks. So doing the math, 111 Valley oaks and 200+ other trees have a combined value well in excess of a million dollars. The developers are planting 4000 trees to replace those. I don’t know what size they’re being required to plant. They can get 15-gallon trees for $50 each if they go to a wholesaler. Bareroot for less than that. So they’re spending $200K to replace trees worth a couple of million dollars. I’m using very round numbers because there are many variables. But to put it simply: they’re getting a deal with the mitigation they’re proposing.
Maybe they should just donate $1 million to TREEDavis instead. Those good folks could plant 50 – 100,000 trees with that money, and make sure they get watered and cared for properly. And it seems ConAgra has lots of money to hand out to local non-profits. Win-win, as folks here like to say.
The solution for this problem seems pretty straightforward . . . conduct as formal meeting of the Tree Commission on site, and document the meeting with detailed minutes that are quickly available to the public. The official meeting attendees would be Dr. McPherson, together with the members of the Tree Commission and ConAgra and the New Home Company. The specific tasks of the meeting would be to go out to the site en masse with the development plans in hand, and color code each tree with a “blaze” of spray paint color, indicating one of four different statuses, (1) a healthy tree in a desirable location, (2) a healthy tree in an undesirable location, (3) an unhealthy tree in a desirable location, and (4) an unhealthy tree in a undesirable location.
The unhealthy trees in undesirable locations represent no loss to the community from a practical perspective, and it is quite possible that from a carbon sequestration perspective their lack of health may cause them to be no particular loss as well. The meeting minutes would provide a tally by species of the unhealthy trees in a clear listing of the undesirable locations.
The unhealthy trees in desirable locations represent an opportunity for the community. A perfect example of trees in this category are the mature black walnuts out Russell Boulevard beyond the City limits past Lake Boulevard. Rich Rifkin bent my ear at a recent Planning Commission meeting (it might have been a Council meeting) about how the budget cuts that eliminated the City’s tree trimmers had resulted in the unwarranted destruction of these “historically significant” trees. I took a bit of my time and went out Russell to understand Rich’s concern. Bottom-line, what I was told (and I would have needed an arborist like Dr. McPherson to confirm the accuracy of what I was told) was that the reason that the walnut trees are coming down is that they are highly infested with “thousand cankers disease” (see [url]http://www.thousandcankerdisease.com/[/url]) and the historical significance of the trees is no more defense against the impending death of those trees than was true for the infestation/impact of Dutch Elm Disease or American Chestnut Blight or Mountain Pine Bark Beetles. The meeting minutes would provide a tally by species of the unhealthy trees in a clear listing of the desirable locations together with a replacement plan from ConAgra/New Home Company.
The healthy trees in undesirable locations will be unfortunate losses. The meeting minutes would provide a tally by species of these healthy trees in a clear listing of the undesirable locations together with a straightforward explanation from ConAgra/New Home Company of why the loss is unavoidable.
That would leave us with a listing of healthy trees in desirable locations, which would be reflected in the minutes.
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
I don’t have enough knowledge of the site or trees or proposed development to add my own opinion on this matter; but am very glad to see the comments from all the people who are knowledgable about and supportive of the trees, and am grateful to those in the community who maintain a hawk-like vigilant watch on proposals of developers–to steer them from the temptation to bulldoze and run roughshod over everything to add something to their profile margin (translating to another vacation home for the development executives, or some such thing)–one wonders if the attitude of some developers toward trees is indicative of a broader outlook that is careless of bulldozing and trampling anything of intangible (but real) value that might pinch a little the bottom line.
correction ‘profit margin’ not ‘profile margin’!
When government transparency is the goal, why does Davis hold meetings at 5:00 or even 6:00? (Not the city council, they usually get it right).
Some families will say they can’t make an evening meeting. Many of those same families have no trouble finding someone to watch their child while they are at pilates or yoga or having a latte with their gal pals.
Many working people cannot leave work early without missing pay. If they use their precious vacation hours, they give up vacations with their significant others, including their pets.
If the community of Davis’ goal is to get more people involved in the process, hold meetings in the evening or on a weekend. Weekend? Yes. Some folks may have to give up a soccer game, but the trees are worth it.
Jimmy’s Daughter’s question illustrates one of the significant challenges that Sarah Worley and Rob White grappled with. . . one for which there really isn’t a good answer. The meeting unfolded over a fur hour period from 5:00 until 9:00. The nine presentations covered the first three hours and after a five minute break, the community dialogue lasted for the final hour.
If the meeting had started at 7:00 like the Council meetings do (after the ceremonial first half hour from 6:30 to 7:00, then the presentations would have lasted from 7:00 until 10:00 and the community dialogue from 10:05 until 11:00. You might have been comfortable with that four-hour window, but I suspect that there would have been other posters here who would have excoriated Staff for not starting the meetings earlier, so that the participants could get home before the hours became double digits.
Weekend meetings? That is exactly what Rochelle Swanson called for in the October 29, 2013 IPTF meeting at the Senior Center. She was very clear that “any Davis citizen with family obligations will find evening meetings very challenging, and we need to make sure that Davis citizens with families have every opportunity to participate in this process. You may want to send Rochelle an e-mail and congratulate her on her wise leadership.
Sarah and Rob are working diligently to make sure that everyone can be, and is, included in this important community effort.