The "City of Trees" should not be in the business of allowing trees to be cut down without a showing of "good cause." There is no good reason the development can not accommodate the continued benefit this wonderful tree brings to the community.
I am writing to support the preservation of this massive Valley Oak. The City has a stated commitment to preserving and protecting its urban tree canopy, especially the native oaks that were a major element in the environment before it was settled by Europeans. While the age of this tree is unknown, it is likely to be older that the built environment around it.
This valley oak provides extensive benefits in terms of mitigating climate change effects, as well as providing a remarkable sample of the historic landscape of our area. The development can be altered to retain this tree while providing the same number of living units. An alternative to the access proposed in the current plan can preserve the tree, which can be highlighted as a design element.
It is deeply unfortunate that the City Planners and Urban Forestry did not set tree preservation as a goal to the developer. That is inconsistent with the City's committment to being the "City of Trees." The City should never have okayed the permit to remove this tree. The neighborhood and our City should not suffer the loss of this tree because the City has been negligent in its duty to protect our urban tree canopy.
Please accept the appeal, and deny the permit to remove this tree.
Thank you for your attention to my message.
Kate Riley
Trees for Sacramento member
I strongly support the appeal for Tree 3041 - a native valley oak that should be kept on site as an asset and feature rather than be removed for the convenience of development. There is clearly a design solution to allow this long-standing tree to survive. For all the space available on this site, Tree 3041's removal is unnecessary. It does not pose a threat or danger—and has survived on its own without care. An effort should be made to plan the project around this tree. If you look around in Sacramento and Elk Grove you will find other thoughtful sites and designs that have successfully integrated existing trees. Am happy to provide recent and historic examples. Thank you.
I strongly support the appeal of the City's recommendation to allow this huge old valley oak to be removed. This tree is toward the edge of the property. With a little work, the project could have been designed to accommodate this beautiful old tree. It takes decades for a tree like this to grow. A tree like this provides signifiant ecosystem services including absorbing carbon, providing shade and cooling in a world where extreme heat is an increasing danger, absorbing water in heavy rains, providing habitat for birds and other living things and providing beauty. Sacramento no longer values its trees and it has become far easier to remove them than to mandate that project applicants do everything possible to preserve them. Developers should be told to do everything possible to protect trees like this. Instead the city makes it ridiculously easy to remove them while the tree canopy continues to shrink. Karen Jacques
I SUPPORT the APPEAL and OPPOSE the removal of this 33-inch DBH Valley Oak in Woodlake.
This is a massive valley oak that is native to the region. It provides extensive benefits in terms of mitigating climate change effects, as well as providing a remarkable sample of the historic landscape of our area. The development can be altered to retain this tree while providing the same number of units. The site can be developed due to the tree's location which is the upper right hand corner of the Parcel.
The city should NOT have approved the removal of this tree. It is the city's duty to protect our urban canopy. The city should not allow our mature trees, especially native trees, to be cut down for development. Developers should also preserve the canopy.
As a resident of this area, I strongly SUPPORT the appeal and OPPOSE the destruction of this heritage Valley Oak. It cannot be replaced or it's removal "mitigated". These old native trees are becoming all too rare in our neighborhoods and our City. This one should be preserved for future generations, not cut down unnecessarily for the convenience of the developer. It is at the edge of the developer's property - let them develop around it.
The "City of Trees" should not be in the business of allowing trees to be cut down without a showing of "good cause." There is no good reason the development can not accommodate the continued benefit this wonderful tree brings to the community.
I am writing to support the preservation of this massive Valley Oak. The City has a stated commitment to preserving and protecting its urban tree canopy, especially the native oaks that were a major element in the environment before it was settled by Europeans. While the age of this tree is unknown, it is likely to be older that the built environment around it.
This valley oak provides extensive benefits in terms of mitigating climate change effects, as well as providing a remarkable sample of the historic landscape of our area. The development can be altered to retain this tree while providing the same number of living units. An alternative to the access proposed in the current plan can preserve the tree, which can be highlighted as a design element.
It is deeply unfortunate that the City Planners and Urban Forestry did not set tree preservation as a goal to the developer. That is inconsistent with the City's committment to being the "City of Trees." The City should never have okayed the permit to remove this tree. The neighborhood and our City should not suffer the loss of this tree because the City has been negligent in its duty to protect our urban tree canopy.
Please accept the appeal, and deny the permit to remove this tree.
Thank you for your attention to my message.
Kate Riley
Trees for Sacramento member
I strongly support the appeal for Tree 3041 - a native valley oak that should be kept on site as an asset and feature rather than be removed for the convenience of development. There is clearly a design solution to allow this long-standing tree to survive. For all the space available on this site, Tree 3041's removal is unnecessary. It does not pose a threat or danger—and has survived on its own without care. An effort should be made to plan the project around this tree. If you look around in Sacramento and Elk Grove you will find other thoughtful sites and designs that have successfully integrated existing trees. Am happy to provide recent and historic examples. Thank you.
I strongly support the appeal of the City's recommendation to allow this huge old valley oak to be removed. This tree is toward the edge of the property. With a little work, the project could have been designed to accommodate this beautiful old tree. It takes decades for a tree like this to grow. A tree like this provides signifiant ecosystem services including absorbing carbon, providing shade and cooling in a world where extreme heat is an increasing danger, absorbing water in heavy rains, providing habitat for birds and other living things and providing beauty. Sacramento no longer values its trees and it has become far easier to remove them than to mandate that project applicants do everything possible to preserve them. Developers should be told to do everything possible to protect trees like this. Instead the city makes it ridiculously easy to remove them while the tree canopy continues to shrink. Karen Jacques
I SUPPORT the APPEAL and OPPOSE the removal of this 33-inch DBH Valley Oak in Woodlake.
This is a massive valley oak that is native to the region. It provides extensive benefits in terms of mitigating climate change effects, as well as providing a remarkable sample of the historic landscape of our area. The development can be altered to retain this tree while providing the same number of units. The site can be developed due to the tree's location which is the upper right hand corner of the Parcel.
The city should NOT have approved the removal of this tree. It is the city's duty to protect our urban canopy. The city should not allow our mature trees, especially native trees, to be cut down for development. Developers should also preserve the canopy.
As a resident of this area, I strongly SUPPORT the appeal and OPPOSE the destruction of this heritage Valley Oak. It cannot be replaced or it's removal "mitigated". These old native trees are becoming all too rare in our neighborhoods and our City. This one should be preserved for future generations, not cut down unnecessarily for the convenience of the developer. It is at the edge of the developer's property - let them develop around it.