March 29 Update: Mayor Stimpson wrote a letter of support to the citizens and Government Street Collaborative agreeing to accept from the GSC group a list of potential trees to preserve or sites to replant oaks. The GSC is forming teams this week to identify those submissions. The Mayor made no guarantees, as tree site selection is driven by numerous issues such as utility placement, hardscape placement, underground infrastructure, etc. We will do our part and let everyone know the response we receive. We appreciate the Mayor’s team and their willingness to work with citizens, and we especially appreciate the City Councilmen and women who have supported our efforts from the beginning.
March 19 Update Following Appeal Hearing: On the date of the Collaborative appeal, at 9:45 am before Council met, the Collaborative was asked to support a compromise which the administration and Council offered, to include:
Insure that the “roundabout” at Canal Street be planted with a live oak
City staff and administration would allow our group to continue submitting specific locations, including considering some swap-outs in the parallel parking lane, in the project to either save an existing tree targeted for removal, or insure mitigation replantings of live oaks in place of removed oaks.
Support the formation of a citizen review committee to be apprised in the earliest possible stages of any project which will impact live oaks in the midtown/downtown areas.
In return, our group was asked to not pursue the appeal and drop the request for a further one week delay to continue assessing tree locations.
The timing of this request, at 9:45 am, did not allow time for the Collaborative group present for the Council meeting to reach out to all our member groups to determine consensus on these requests. However, we did have at least one person present from each district that joined the appeal and we polled all present in the atrium before Council meeting, which was about 15 citizens. Councilman Williams spoke to the group of his support after Bill Boswell explained the compromise offer.
We did NOT get unanimous agreement, and at least one appellant, Mr. Pete Burns, spoke against the compromise as too vague and as a “pig in a poke.” Others were willing to take the compromise, feeling a failure to accept could mean the loss of the progress already made in saving more trees.
Both positions were presented to Council by commenters at the microphone. The Collaborative asked for the offer in writing, signed by the Mayor or by Paul Wesch. Both were out of town. City Engineer Nick Amberger said he would sign the offer if that could be accepted until the Mayor returns to town. Ultimately, that is how it was resolved.
There was discussion following speaker comments by Bill Boswell, Pete Burns, and Brenda Bolton, as well as Nick Amberger, city engineer, and Mr. Brooks and Mr. McDaniels from the Tree Commission. Both Tree Commissioners expressed frustration that the timeline presented to them did not leave them adequate time to engage effectively and make an informed decision. One stated that, “We voted with a gun to our head basically.” Councilors spoke to their commitment to citizens and stated that if the administration did not honor the commitments made this morning, Council would still have to approve the contracts to be submitted for the tree removal work. Brenda Bolton reminded everyone that such Council support would require a 5 member vote, and stated that she hoped Council was being forthcoming with citizens. The Collaborative did NOT drop their appeal, leaving open the door for further appeals.
Council voted to deny the Collaborative’s appeal. This does leave a further appeal to Circuit Court as an option and began a 15 day clock until that appeal deadline. In the interim, Collaborative members intend to continue assessing the plan-to-date presented by the Tiger Grant office, and seeking additional ways to ask that as many healthy live oaks as possible are retained.
March 8 update: The Mayor and Staff met with a group of 10 citizens led by Government Street resident and GSC member, Bill Boswell, to hear citizen concerns in regard to the mass removal of live oaks in the Tiger Grant project on Broad Street. A good discussion was held and staff came into the meeting having already identified about 10 healthy existing live oaks which they now commit to saving. Further, they added live oaks to the replacement tree list, which citizens requested to insure a wide age diversity of healthy oaks in the city. The April 1 deadline is the city’s internal deadline to maintain their timeline as they head toward a June 30 federal deadline for plan submission. The Sept. 30 deadline is the federal funding-release deadline. The period June 30-Sept. 30 is the federal period for review and communication between the city and funding agency, the federal DOT. Citizens asked about the section of Broad Street south of Canal and how oaks on that segment would be impacted, and were told that segment is not yet planned, but is targeted for use of the required “matching” state and local funding in the total grant package. Local funding is already set aside, per grant requirement.
Citizens requested the public distribution of a graphic map clearly showing which trees are to remain, which are live oaks, which are to be replaced, which replacements are live oaks, and tree counts in these categories.
That map has, as of March 13, been posted to the Tiger Grant website.
The meeting ended with both parties agreeing to maintain communication on the following issues and questions:
*Determine exactly what the “tree count” is following this March 8 meeting from the city’s perspective (map of saved live oaks, replacement live oaks) Note: This was posted online on March 13.
*Determine whether the published “tree count” meets citizens’ expectations (in progress)
*How are other entities impacted and what compromises may be offered by those to save more live oaks, such as the biking community, the downtown alliance, business/residents fronting Broad, public agencies fronting Broad, etc.?
*Are there any public lands fronting Broad that may provide space where live oaks may be incentivize by the city in order to maintain a greater oak canopy presence? (School sytem property, Bishop State property, city property, as examples)
While the Collaborative group continue communicating to review all the map information, the Appeal will go forward on March 19th, 10:30 am, Govt Plaza, with the pre-meeting at 9:00 am in the Council conference room behind the auditorium.
The appeal is an appeal for Council to reverse the February 19 TREE COMMISSION APPROVAL TO REMOVE THE ORIGINAL, UNACCEPTABLE, NUMBER OF LIVE OAKS, WITH NO LIVE OAKS ON THE REPLACEMENT LIST. PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THE APPEAL, AS THIS ISSUE IS “NOT OVER UNTIL THE VOTE IS CAST.”
The goal of the appeal is to reverse that original approval and lead to compromises on both sides to arrive at an improved, more citizen-friendly Tiger Grant for Broad Street that includes the preservation of a live oak canopy and presence while meeting the other very commendable goals of the grant.
HELP US.
Attend the March 19 appeal to Council to observe the vote and make your position known by your presence. Information about the petition drive, “I support Compromise that saves more live oaks on Broad Street” — is on Nextdoor and Facebook. Encourage your neighbors to log on! Petitions may also be printed, signed, and emailed to: governmentstreetmobile@gmail.com
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Original post, 2/25/19: Hard to imagine Mardi Gras is in progress with so much attention focused on Oak Lined Broad Street this week. Yellow ribbons marked the oaks, thanks to concerned citizens, to bring attention to the magnitude of the anticipated tree canopy loss when the city’s “One Mobile Tiger Grant” is implemented. It should be noted that the ribbons were intended simply as the quickest way to bring wide attention to the issue, and not, as some thought, as an accurate record of which trees would come down. After all, which trees are targeted has not been known, the number changing depending on who is reporting it, and is one of the pieces to the puzzle that local residents and groups have repeatedly requested.
At the Feb. 19th Tree Commission meeting, citizens who have followed the Broad street project from its initial “Bring Back Broad” days, were stunned to learn, for the first time, that 55 trees, including almost 50 mature Live Oaks, are targeted for removal, and not only that, this is the SECOND GROUP of trees, the first group having already received approval, apparently without a fully public process since the Tree Commission website shows no meeting agenda with the case. The surprises continued a week later at the Feb. 26th Council meeting when the Mayor revealed, when asked, that the total number of trees to date approved for removal is 160, and 67 are live oak, of which 15 are deemed unhealthy.
This has brought into the daylight a change, somewhere around 2015-2016, in the state Tree law that grants pre-emptive authority to a mayor to bypass a city’s Tree Commission and certify approval for any number of “protected” trees if the mayor feels the removal is necessary…”Ala.Code 1975 § 11-72-9
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no person shall cut, remove, trim, or in any way damage any tree in any street right-of-way in the Class 2 municipality or create any condition injurious to any tree without having first made a written application so to do to the commission and having obtained advance written permission from the commission. Any governmental body or utility may, by filing an application accompanied by a certificate as hereinafter provided, obtain a continuing permission to trim, cut, or remove at any time any trees in any area described in its application for such permission….The commission may in its discretion hold public hearings on any application and may approve part of an application or may approve an application upon terms and conditions as the commission may establish. In considering any application before it, the commission shall base its decision on whether the public and private benefit that will result from granting the application outweighs the public and private benefit that will result from denying it. In the event the mayor of the Class 2 municipality or public utility shall certify to the commissioners that it desires to trim, cut, or remove trees and that it is or may become reasonably necessary to do so to prevent a public hazard or to provide efficient or economical service to the public, then such certificate shall be conclusive evidence for the approval of the application, and the commission shall approve the same, and there shall be no appeal from such approval except as provided inSection 11-72-10.
Listen to Bill Finch discuss this and other issues related to the Broad St project at this link:
https://fmtalk1065.com/podcast/plain-gardening-with-bill-finch-2-24-19-hour-1
The tree discussion starts at about 9:40 and runs to about 21:11, then calls come in on the topic.
By the February 26 Council meeting, all 5 of the historic districts in the Collaborative , as well as several street associations, businesses, and individuals, had decided to support an appeal of the Tree Commission’s approval. All responding voiced that healthy trees which don’t have to come down should be protected. All also voiced a desire for the original 2016 Tiger Grant Plan, which built on the earlier Bring Back Broad, to be implemented in order to meet the plan’s goals of producing a people-friendly city street that will reconnect north to south and east to west neighborhoods and people to such important city features and services as the GM&O transit hub, Three Mile Creek greenway, and downtown shopping and entertainment.
The original Tiger Grant plan in the 2016 narrative submission, presents a vision every Mobilian should love, of a renewed Broad Street that:
*Renovates Broad Street infrastructure (renews and redesigns surfacing and places utilities underground (!!), though is sadly lacking in a commitment to any pervious paved surfacing along off-road ROW
*Follows “road diet’ and “complete street” urban design to reduce auto lanes, thus REconnecting midtown to our downtown core, to the GM&O transit hub, to the Brookley complex, to the 3 Mile Creek project, as well as north-to-south and east-to-west residential neighborhoods, through the installation of pedestrian- and bike-friendly accommodations and traffic calming strategies
*Provides: ”Enhanced landscaping,..street furnishings…improved lighting…street trees…safety”
The issues arose when the implementation of these inarguably positive goals became public for the first time, presented by city engineering to the Tree Commission last week. While earlier public meetings were held, only the vision was described, which included numerous diagrams showing large street tree icons from the engineer’s toolkit, but the gritty details of actual implementation were missing in action.
The question becomes which and how many trees must be sacrificed, how will they be replaced if at all, and who makes those decisions, and where in the decision-making will the “Will of the People” whose daily lives are impacted be considered?
After all, real people, from youngsters to the elderly and even the infirm, would walk that street, ride bikes on that street, wait for buses on that street, cross that street to walk to downtown from midtown for food and entertainment options, follow that street to the 3 Mile Creek area or to work at Brookley or to transit at the GM&O, and from April to October, need the heat reduction and comfort that only dense shade can provide in a coastal city. Anyone who removes shade trees should have to walk Broad Street’s 4 miles at the high noon lunch hour in high summer every day. Then we’ll talk.
Feb. 26 Update: At the February 26 Council meeting, the Council invited a citizen’s appeal as the only appropriate route to bring concerns to the forefront. You can be certain many midtown and downtown associations and districts will do so. The Mayor assured audience members that every oak which could be saved would be saved. He said that the total number of trees to be removed for the project-to-date is 160, 67 of which are live oaks. Of those 15 are deemed unhealthy or unstable and the remaining are in the way of construction. When Councilwoman Rich asked if the city had pursued ROW expansions to allow hard surfacing to go around trees, the Mayor stated that was a measure that was too cumbersome to attempt. Councilwoman Gregory stated that in her area it was routine to go around tree trunks. The Mayor graciously invited Council members to join staff on a walk the full length of the project to look at each tree to be removed and hear the explanation for its sacrifice. The Mayor stated he would be glad to meet with a small citizen group in his office, but neither he nor Council agreed to the public forum requested in writing by the Collaborative or by speaker Bill Boswell, who was representing a number of midtown and downtown historic districts.
It appears the answer to this question will be played out in meetings, presentations, petitions, and appeals over the next several weeks. The city engineer insists there is no time to revisit the project and cited a “drop-dead” June deadline. Research of the 2016 Tiger Grant CFR Federal Grant Regulations, however, reveal that the June 30, 2019, deadline is an interim checkpoint, though an important one, but will be followed by the real deadline of September 30, 2019. [SEE MARCH 8TH UPDATE ABOVE CORRECTING DEADLINE INFORMATION] Other language in the regulations indicated to some that there could be other flexibility in deadlines. Even without an extension, voluntary advisors with experience in the area of grants and project planning assure the GSC that there are ways to modify this grant to save more healthy oak trees and improve the plan in other ways (enhanced bike and pedestrian comfort and safety, for example) without going back to square one. Those modifications are possible by a June 30 interim date, with support from the administration to get the job done.