5 comments
Editor’s Note: John Fauvre copied Pasadena Now on this letter he sent to the Commissioners of the Pasadena Recreation and Parks Commission.
Dear Commissioners: I thank you for your consideration and Public Works for raising important issues for the Lower Arroyo.
RECOMMENDATION
Suspend consideration of the proposal for removal of 117 trees until it is possible to obtain details about: the trees to be removed, factors relating to the presumed change in City policy from support for plantings of native trees to approval of massive removal of non-native trees in the Lower Arroyo: informed responses by neighbors, users of the park and persons interested in City parks and the Urban Forest after reasonable notice and an opportunity to visit the trees and have time to consider their elimination; and responses from the Urban Forest Advisory Committee to the request for its approval. This would require a further consideration of the proposal at next month’s meeting.
BACKGROUND
In June of 2019 the City Council approved CIP project 77410 for $650,000 for unspecified landscaping in the Lower Arroyo, with no mention of the elimination of over 100 non native trees. Established City policy has authorized the planting of natives, but not any massive removal of non native trees. The non native trees and been planted and cared for as appropriate in the natural park for decades, apparently in at least since the construction of the concrete flood control channel in 1948 and installation of the Archery Range below California Street.
On July 20, 2020, Public Works sent a brief description of its plan to remove the 117 trees to the Arroyo Seco Foundation, the Casting Club, the Archery Club, and the La Casita Foundation. This provided the first disclosure of the tree removal plan, identified on a one page diagram with little colored bubbles to locate the targeted trees. Since then, sketchy information and complaints began to circulate among the randomly informed interested persons. No notice of was posted or published for walkers, runners, equestrians, birders, neighbors, or persons interested in parks or the Urban Forest. Many questions have been posed but not yet answered. Now a UFAC meeting is set for next week and two separate Zoom meetings have been considered by Councilman Steve Madison and Principal Engineer Hayden Melbourn.
The parallel proposal for new native planting, including 42 new trees, appears to be functionally separate from the destruction of the non native trees and could apparently start right away. It could be approved separately.
Since the Lower Arroyo was an abandoned City dump and the installation of the County sewer line and the concrete channel, the Lower Arroyo canopies have been planted and evolved consistent with Southern California aesthetics utilizing appropriate trees from around the world. The City has let them grow and cared for them to provide shade, beauty, and support for a familiar natural environment. Normal review of massive projects throughout Pasadena has included review of all individual trees to be removed after posting and reasonable notice to residents. Only in this way has it been considered possible to evaluate the adverse effects of removal as against the alleged benefits.
PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
Work for the new plantings should be approved and go forward.
The hearing next week before the Urban Forest Advisory Committee, presumed “to obtain approval,” should proceed, along with the two upcoming Zoom presentations.
Adequate notice by posting and publication should be provided to all park users and residents. Everyone interested, including members of this Commission, should be offered a tour of the 117 trees to be killed as was provided to the Casting Club and the La Casita Foundation. (I have walked the mapped area and found it difficult at best to find the subject trees or form any opinion about the effects of destruction or how removal might affect new landscaping.)
Responses and questions should be reviewed by staff and this Commission to form a basis to support, modify, or reject the tree removal plan, if possible within the next 30 days.
CONCLUSION
As I read this over I fear it sounds unduly arrogant and demanding. That is not intended. It is to identify possible questions for appropriate consideration. I have lived most of my 75 years near the Arroyo and cared about it and participated in City programs for its support. I can’t help but feel that this experience calls for expression on this important issue.
Respectfully,
John Fauvre
Pasadena
Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.
Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m.
