From rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us Tue Sep 25 13:32:27 2007 From: rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us (Robin&Dennis) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:32:27 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] OldNorth -- first count of missing street trees Message-ID: Old North leadership, For the agenda's discussion topic this Thursday I can give two preliminary reports on street trees related to the replacement of King High project. The context is that Old North has talked to the school district about (1) our interest in protecting and enhancing their street trees at King's B Street frontage and (2) their verbal agreement to compensate for on-site removal of several large trees by funding an in-fill in Old North of our missing street trees. 1). I've sent two emails without getting a reply from our DJUSC contact Maureen Poole about our board's interest last week in the health of unwatered surviving street trees along B. Street (and also mentioned was our concern about ground cover ivy as a planting and our concern about adequate spacing for the two cork oaks to be planted). No reply from the school district is the news here. 2). I've done a survey of "missing street trees" from the Old North area. Some 71 addresses are given below from this morning's review of places in the boulevards of our neighborhood where the regular grid of street tree plantings is missing a tree (in general, two trees per lot on the B to G lettered streets and 4 trees per long lot on the 5th-6th-7th street frontages. In a few cases I do not list below a missing tree that seems an unlikely candidate for replacement because driveways make planting illogical; in many of the cases below the existing trees have grown to such size that it would be illogical to expect a new tree to thrive against established competition adjacent to that site. I give you the list of 71 places missing a tree to initiate a conversation about whether we want to suggest that the city (with DJUSD funding) plant new trees in these 71 places. B Street: none missing. C Street: 520, 603, 632, 651. D Street: 607 (x2), 621, 627, 512 516, 528, 510 6th (x2), 608, 616, 648. E Street: 507, 517, 539, 637, 600-6th (x2), 618, 710-7th. F Street: 503 (x2), 507, 513, 519, 529, 531, 537 (x3), 621-6th (x2), 637, 508, 512, 516. 704-6th, 703-6th (x4), 630, 636, 642, 646 (x4). G Street: 501 (x4), 607, 617, 647, 500 (x3), 516, 522, 536 (x2), 620 (x3), 630 (x2). Let me know if there is a proposed addition or deletion from the list. We can refine the list through some committee process if we decide to put to the City a list for their review. Whole additional issue: should we at this time ask home owners whether they think their existing street tree needs replacing at this time? Lots of people hate their street trees for various reasons (wrong variety, dripping and dropping behaviors, ugly shape, not an even more attractive variety, etc.). Your street tree committee member, Dennis Dingemans ** P.S.: did anyone else notice Cyndy Marshall & Steve Tracy's classy new bike rack? I heart it. A whole From rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us Tue Sep 25 13:32:27 2007 From: rddd at dcn.davis.ca.us (Robin&Dennis) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:32:27 -0700 Subject: [OldNorth] OldNorth -- first count of missing street trees Message-ID: Old North leadership, For the agenda's discussion topic this Thursday I can give two preliminary reports on street trees related to the replacement of King High project. The context is that Old North has talked to the school district about (1) our interest in protecting and enhancing their street trees at King's B Street frontage and (2) their verbal agreement to compensate for on-site removal of several large trees by funding an in-fill in Old North of our missing street trees. 1). I've sent two emails without getting a reply from our DJUSC contact Maureen Poole about our board's interest last week in the health of unwatered surviving street trees along B. Street (and also mentioned was our concern about ground cover ivy as a planting and our concern about adequate spacing for the two cork oaks to be planted). No reply from the school district is the news here. 2). I've done a survey of "missing street trees" from the Old North area. Some 71 addresses are given below from this morning's review of places in the boulevards of our neighborhood where the regular grid of street tree plantings is missing a tree (in general, two trees per lot on the B to G lettered streets and 4 trees per long lot on the 5th-6th-7th street frontages. In a few cases I do not list below a missing tree that seems an unlikely candidate for replacement because driveways make planting illogical; in many of the cases below the existing trees have grown to such size that it would be illogical to expect a new tree to thrive against established competition adjacent to that site. I give you the list of 71 places missing a tree to initiate a conversation about whether we want to suggest that the city (with DJUSD funding) plant new trees in these 71 places. B Street: none missing. C Street: 520, 603, 632, 651. D Street: 607 (x2), 621, 627, 512 516, 528, 510 6th (x2), 608, 616, 648. E Street: 507, 517, 539, 637, 600-6th (x2), 618, 710-7th. F Street: 503 (x2), 507, 513, 519, 529, 531, 537 (x3), 621-6th (x2), 637, 508, 512, 516. 704-6th, 703-6th (x4), 630, 636, 642, 646 (x4). G Street: 501 (x4), 607, 617, 647, 500 (x3), 516, 522, 536 (x2), 620 (x3), 630 (x2). Let me know if there is a proposed addition or deletion from the list. We can refine the list through some committee process if we decide to put to the City a list for their review. Whole additional issue: should we at this time ask home owners whether they think their existing street tree needs replacing at this time? Lots of people hate their street trees for various reasons (wrong variety, dripping and dropping behaviors, ugly shape, not an even more attractive variety, etc.). Your street tree committee member, Dennis Dingemans ** P.S.: did anyone else notice Cyndy Marshall & Steve Tracy's classy new bike rack? I heart it. A whole