Trees: Business Interests Trump Residents Interests

In its ongoing investigation about what went wrong with the street trees at the Parkside Project on Powell Street, The Secret News along with Emeryville resident Adrian McGilly uncover a subterfuge program meant to further business interests at the expense of residents interests, including prevarication by the city staff.  In a February 7, 2012 memo to the City Manager and the city council, Planning Director Charlie Bryant said flatly the reason the trees would need to be cut down was to "accommodate the park and the [final, not temporary] parking lot".  As the still unfolding story reveals, that was a fabrication by Mr Bryant.
Here's the latest Secret News story on these trees:

City Willing to Trade 20-Year-Old Trees for Temporary Parking

October 15, 2012

By Adrian McGilly

Council Member Jac Asher has put on the agenda for the next City Council meeting (Oct. 16th) a discussion of whether the city should change the design of the Parkside park to include some or all of the existing trees. Council Member Asher’s willingness to do this shows her commitment to transparent government. It shows that she wants the freedom to cast her votes on the basis of complete information, not partial information cherry-picked by city staff. It shows that she values the right of Emeryville’s residents to receive proper notification (i.e. signs posted on the trees) when the city is contemplating the removal of its trees.
Her actions have already yielded results. In response, Charles Bryant, Planning Director for the City of Emeryville, has issued a Staff Report which finally reveals the real motivation behind the removal of these trees....

Read the rest of the story by clicking HERE.

'Parkside' Trees: City Staff Conspires With Developer To Hide Information

Mr Adrian McGilly, husband of Mayor Jennifer West, levels an explosive accusation; the Planning Department staff at City Hall, deliberately misled the city council in a report about publicly owned street trees a developer wishes to cut down as part of the new 'Parkside' condominium project now being built at Hollis and Powell Streets.  The Secret News covers the story:

Emeryville City Staff Deliberately Misled City Council

October 1, 2012

By Adrian McGilly

When the city failed to post notices on the trees to be cut down, Adrian McGilly took it upon himself to do so. While such notice is required under the city’s Urban Forestry Ordinance, the city is exempt. (Click on photos to enlarge.)

Open letter to City Council says staff instructed “Parkside” developer to delete portions of arborist’s report

City Council Members:
Attached is the Staff Report you all received prior to voting to authorize the removal of 33 mature trees along Stanford [Street].  It includes the arborist report commissioned by Archstone and produced by Hortscience Inc., which recommends the destruction of those [public] trees. As you know, I find it sad and misguided that mature trees will be destroyed on a site that is being turned into a public park. I find this decision so repulsive that I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how it happened. I want to share with you some of my findings...

Click HERE for the rest of the story.

Missing Trees At Target Store Site 18 Years Later, Mistake Is Perpetuated

This is what the East Bay Bridge Mall
was supposed to look like.

This is what we got and it seems,
all we're ever going to get.

Staff Makes Same Mistake Again; Can't Learn

 Emeryville: The Little City That Can't Seem To Do Anything Right

Opinion
The 1992 Environmental Impact Report for the sprawling East Bay Bridge Mall says it all:  The rows of parked cars there will be ugly and create harsh glare, lowering the quality of life; a "significant" impact for residents.  Fortunately for us the report also identified the fix: plant trees, lots of them and then the problem will become "less than significant".  Unfortunately for us though, Emeryville contains more than its share of pro-developer government officials that don't really care about the resident's interests.  So we didn't get the required trees.
Now years later, part of the mall is being redeveloped with a Target store moving in, and we've been given a second chance to get the landscaping right, but once again government officials can't or won't work in our interests so again we won't get our promised trees.

The Target parking lot has been reconfigured and they're planting new trees right now after having recently cut down the 1990's specimens.  The city says perhaps as many as 100 new trees in all will be planted by Target.  But as in the 1990's, the percentage of the parking lot tree 'canopy coverage', that is the percentage of the parking lot covered by trees when viewed from above, will not be close to the 25% required by the mall's environmental documents.  What percentage of tree coverage Target will plant the city cannot say since apparently only Target knows that; the city hasn't taken an interest.

Past Corruption
Back in the '90's, how we first lost the trees is a history of bad governance; essentially a primer on how not to do it.  A citizen prompted 2003 Planning Department investigation revealed certain rogue Planning Commissioners had 10 years earlier, unilaterally revised the contract with the developer of the mall, Catellus Development Corporation, freeing the developer from the large number of parking lot tree plantings mandated by the mall's Environmental Impact Report document.  The action was literally a back room deal.  The environmental document required a minimum of 25% tree canopy coverage, but the actual amount planted was about 2% according to the investigation.
The investigation fingered at least three Planning Commissioners and cleared up the question as to why the environmental document required 25% tree coverage but the final 'Conditions of Approval' for the mall ultimately showed no tree requirement at all.  The investigation revealed the Planning Commissioners in question never provided testimony as to why they had intervened and let the developer off the hook for providing the trees.  One of the commissioners reflecting on the contract revision from 10 years earlier, did indicate that Catellus simply didn't want to spend the money the larger number of trees would cost and they asked the commissioners for relief from the 25% tree requirement, a task the commissioners gladly, and out of the public spotlight, provided.  The Planning Commissioners must have felt Catellus' pain since the Planning Department's investigation found no evidence of bribes having taken place.

Ghost Of The Corruption
Today, the staff has finally given up on the idea of planning at the East Bay Bridge mall since they are content with letting Target decide how many trees it wants in its parking lot.  The 25% requirement seems to have been abandoned and deference has been given to an 18 year old back room deal between some former Planning Commissioners and the profit maximizing Catellus Development Corporation.  We're locked it would seem, into a place where we cannot honor the ethos of livability the city council keeps publicly hawking.  Nobody at City Hall seems to see the folly of this: it was the apolitical Environmental Impact Report, a scientific document, that ruled that the 25% tree coverage to offset the parking lot negative impacts was necessary, not any commercial interests.  Now it seems this random piece of bad government from a bygone era is going to continue to haunt future residents of Emeryville until a forthright leader steps up and disposes this ridiculous impediment.