|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A group of residents, joined on Saturday by the Raging Grannies, gathered on Saturday and Sunday at El Camino Real and Ravenswood Avenue in Menlo Park to protest the planned felling of seven redwood trees.
The Planning Commission approved taking down the trees after the property owner reported that needed repair work on the building at 1000 El Camino Real couldn’t be done if the trees remained.
The City Council, in the face of community opposition to the plan, agreed to have the city’s Environmental Quality Commission review the plan.
The protesters last weekend encouraged residents to attend the EQC meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday, March 27, to advocate for saving the trees.
Redwoods belong not in town but rural locations. They are dirty messy unstable trees. Removing and planting appropriately is a good idea
Redwoods keep the climate healthy for us all. Protecting them can have a significant impact in slowing global climate change. What’s so dirty about that Paul?
It’s like this, Mindy: Somebody planted those trees a little while ago (in the 80’s) without thinking about the effect they would have on the neighboring buildings when they grew large. They grew fast as redwood trees will, and have now damaged the structure of the building. Repairing that damage is likely to release more CO2 than those trees would ever sequester That is dirty from a climate change perspective.
Redwood trees do not sequester carbon at a rate any different than other trees. They simply live longer. and when they die, or fall on your house, they don’t rot as fast. That is why they have the widely misunderstood reputation you refer to. These trees next to El Camino Real are 40 years old so they are not helping any more than any other tree of that size. See https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/05/are-california-redwood-trees-the-answer-to-global-warming/ Protecting these young trees is NOT going to “have a siginificant impact on slowing global climate change.”. The only thing that will do that is decision making at an international level. Nothing you or I or Menlo Park will do is going to have a significant effect.
The definition of a weed is “a plant considered undesirable in a particular situation, “a plant in the wrong place”.”. A redwood tree planted in a location where its profuse shedding causes litter or a fire hazard, or it falls on someone, or where its growth damages a building, is a weed. That has nothing whatsoever to do with redwood trees in their natural environment. Don’t confuse the two.
We had a similar issue some years back at Dimond Park in Oakland. We had several meetings with Friends of Sausal Creek,( our local creek and the park through which it flows )and Tree experts in Oakland. We had several ten to 20 year old redwoods which were too close to the creek bank and it took a lot of convincing for the community to accept removal of those trees. We have several species of endangered fish trying to survive in that creek, including the original rainbow trout. It was important to reshape the creek bed to avoid the homes being undermined on the other side of the creek and, to do that, those young and scraggly redwoods had to be removed.
Originally, I was on the side of no removal of any redwood from anywhere, but through meeting with the community and the arborists, who are local and very involved with saving redwoods that are viable, I changed my position on these young redwoods. We still have many redwoods in Dimond Park that are not problematic and so remain.
So a few years back those redwoods were removed and our park looks great. Our fish population is increasing and the homes across the creek are no longer being undermined since the creek bed was diverted and flows naturally now. As a raging Granny myself, I would like to support them in protest, but for this cause, sorry-no can do. I would suggest that they meet with arborists who are not anti-redwood to get information in this particular removal.
Hi Sandi,
In our case, the impact of the Redwood tree removal will be a less costly building repair project and the preservation of underutilized underground parking spaces.
I strongly encourage everyone who cares about this issue to attend tonight’s meeting. For more information, see https://sites.google.com/view/7-heritage-trees
Best,
Jen Mazzon
Please be advised people above posting FOR the removal of trees have not indicated their stake in this. They may be pro corporation or even with the company that wants desperately to remove trees and save money, hassle.
We must speak up as residents to save the trees without corporate influence
Sometimes I really wonder if those who are pro-tree-removal really think anybody buys their weak sauce?
I mean, most of the arguments have been rebutted several ways and I can’t understand why they would go through that humiliation unless they have personal interest aka $ at stake.
But “weeds” and “parking” trigger enough of the less educated,so that posturing is quite entertaining.
@AWatkins: “Redwood trees do not sequester carbon at a rate any different than other trees.”
State of California: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=26107
“This process, called carbon sequestration, is something California’s redwoods do better than just about any other species on the planet.”
Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies: “California’s ancient redwood trees store more carbon dioxide per acre than any other forest in the world, including tropical rain forests like the Amazon, according to new research published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management.”
We might not be able to save the trees, but its always fun to blow up non-facts posted on this forum.