12 responses to “Council to Consider Tree Alternatives”

1. Anonymous

   May 20, 2007

   Some items associate width the removal of TOM.

   First, the city hasn’t presented a detailed cost report on just how much it would cost to remove TOM and make all of the necessary repairs and changes.

   Second, TOM falls within the arena of CEQA. Before TOM can be removed an in depth EIR needs to be completed, which is going to cost money.

   The city would be better off applying to make Easton Drive part of the State’s historical list and this would exempt the city from so many of the issues associated with the standard and substandard.

   Currently the tree that has been chosen to replace TOM offers its own serious safety issues for all of those individuals (young & old) who walk, ride, or skate under it canopy, but we do not hear Roaslie or Ann raising this safety issue, which is much more realistic than the strawman issue currently being raised about TOM.

2. Andrew

   May 20, 2007

   Sorry Rich. A tree is not part of CEQA. In fact, in Burlingame, you can cut down a heritage tree to build a house.

   The city has a yearly budget for city reforestation so it is already in the yearly budget, or the city couldn’t receive its yearly “Tree City USA” award.

   You are pretty good with facts, but i guess not all the time.

3. Anonymous

   May 20, 2007

   The city does not need to apply to the State, which is time consuming. The Council has the right to declare any street in the city, or any area in the city an ‘Historic Resource,’ without State approval–both types are locally administered. Easton is a highly unique street and the designation could be used to our advantage in all phases of its future planning, including parking issues and reforestation. Because most of the street intersections are not aligned in the traditional sense, the area will need to be handled differently than the rest of the town, with or without designation. State and local designations are locally administered. The city would write the resource into the general plan. This is something that the council could do immediately and there are people who have expertise in this area who can advise what steps to take.

   Many people have suggested this route, and it is a mystery to me why this hasn’t been pursued months ago, when this first came up.

   Also, to my knowledge, we haven’t heard the total cost of removing Tom the Tree, including subsequent repairs to the street and sewer after removal. I have asked the Mayor twice for this information, and she has forwarded it to the City Manager–still no answer.

   I do think the public is entitled to this information.

4. Jack

   May 20, 2007

   Jen, You sounded very scary…please don’t take my property right, street away…you opinion don’t represent ppls who live on Easton.

   FYI

   California Historical Resources Information System
   (CHRIS)

   The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) database maintained by OHP and the records maintained and managed, under contract, by twelve independent regional Information Centers (ICs).

   # Individuals and government agencies seeking information on cultural and historical resources should begin their research by contacting the regional Information Center which services the county in which the resource is located. The IC Roster identifies the locations, contact information, and counties served by each regional IC. Information Centers (ICs) Provide archeological and historical resources information, on a fee-for-service basis, to local governments and individuals with responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as to the general public.
   # Integrate newly recorded sites and information on known resources into the California Historical Resources Inventory.
   # Collect and maintain information on historical and archeological resources developed under projects or activities which were not reviewed under a program administered by OHP, including:

   # information on individual resources identified and evaluated in CEQA documents;
   # archaeological surveys performed by academic or avocational groups which are not associated with federal projects; and
   # archeological and/or historical resource surveys conducted by agencies for planning purposes that do not involve an undertaking subject to review under Section 106 of the NHPA.

   # Maintain a list of consultants who are qualified to do work within their area.
   The Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) maintained by OHP includes only information on historical resources that have been identified and evaluated through one of the programs that OHP administers under the National Historic Preservation Act or the California Public Resources Code. The HRI includes data on:

   * Resources evaluated in local government historical resource surveys partially funded through Certified Local Government grants or in surveys which local governments have submitted for inclusion in the statewide inventory;
   * Resources evaluated and determinations of eligibility (DOEs) made in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act;
   * Resources evaluated for federal tax credit certifications;
   * Resources considered for listing in the National and California Registers or as California State Landmarks or Points of Historical Interest.

5. Anonymous

   May 21, 2007

   If you actually had read my post, you’d see that I was referring to the city writing that street into the code, not the state. As I said, through the state, it is much more involved.

6. Anonymous

   May 21, 2007

   I’m mystified (or confused!) … when Easton Drive Trees came up courtesy of Mr. Galligan years ago, why did the neighbors/historians/preservationists not put Easton Drive on the Historic Register (ie not waiting for the council to make a decision but being proactive)?

   There was some discussion about doing this but what happened?

   Too much work/not enough volunteers/wrong criteria/reasons?

7. Anonymous

   May 21, 2007

   Most cities, particularly those that are less proactive on these, (like ours) typically haven’t heard of this method, and only know about the State OHP method. It is a council vote, period. It is handled by each city in their general plan, as they see fit, or not.

8. Anonymous

   May 21, 2007

   This issue has been floated before the past and present council and for whatever reason it did not move forward.

9. Anonymous

   May 21, 2007

   Andrew

   CEQA is an issue, and if you remember the council meeting where this issue was first raised. There was a question from the council regarding this matter and the City Attorney commented on this issue. He addressed the council and reaffirmented the speaker’s position that CEQA did apply and had to be addressed. Please note there is an audio tape of this exchange.

   I am sure you are well informed about CEQA, so I will not belabor its verbage, but I would like to draw your attention to several specific notations. Title 14,CCR Public Resources Code secions 5020, 5024, 4852, and 15064. Also, Title 14 CCR Chapter 3 addresses the law and its administration as it applies to both the public agencies and the public in general.

   Lets not forget the Environmental Impact Report, which needs to be completed for a project of this magnatude.

10. Andrew

    May 22, 2007

    Sorry Rich;

    The city already has a reforestation plan in place and as long as they follow that, they can cut and replace any tree.

11. Anonymous

    May 22, 2007

    Humm, what plan is that? Please let us know, as I haven’t heard of one. The only thing I’ve heard of is a species selection list, that nobody seems to like. This at least will be re-tooled by Beautification.

12. Anonymous

    May 22, 2007

    Please, please, please, Madam Mayor, just make a decision. Enough already with the surveys and research. You can’t please everyone, and no matter what you finally decide, not everyone will be happy. I have my own opinion of what should happen to the tree but that’s not the issue here. Whether I or anyone else thinks it’s a good, bad, right, or wrong decision, we’ll respect you for making the decision you were elected to make. The voters must accept that they may not like the decision, but at least a decision will have been made, just like in other arenas of America’s political structure. Being swayed by public opinion is no way to handle the job of being a decision maker on our council. I watched the meeting 2 weeks ago on cable and was embarrased that our elected leaders could still not figure out what to do with the tree (well, 4 out of 5 made a decision). This isn’t a decision for the public to make. This is your decision to make for the community. If it’s a public choice, then it should be on the next ballot. But since it’s not, it’s YOUR job to make the decision on our behalf. That’s what elected leaders do – make decisions on the public’s behalf. If our leaders kept changing their minds whenever the public cried out, nothing would ever get accomplished. It’ll be intersting to see what your decsion will be if the community poll comes back 50/50 for the one way street idea. Ann was right, you had one job to do that night – decide the fate of the tree – and it still wasn’t accomplished. Rosalie was right too, in that it will become, if it hasn’t already, a political issue in this election year. If this is what we can expect from you as one of our leaders, then you’re going to need all the luck you can get this November. You won’t be getting my vote at the very least and that’s what should concern you the most.