Tyler Hayden
This story was originally published by the Santa Barbara Independent and is reproduced here in partnership with Edhat.
By Tyler Hayden of The Independent
“Shocked.” “Frustrated.” “Very uncomfortable.” “Just really, really annoyed.” Those were the sentiments expressed Tuesday evening by the Santa Barbara City Council as they voted through gritted teeth to deny a Lomita Road homeowner’s petition to remove a large deodar cedar tree from her front yard.
The council’s issue wasn’t with the homeowner or her request, however. Marilyn Goldman had followed the application process to a T and made a compelling case for why the tree should go. Instead, their intense displeasure lay with an appointed member of the city’s Street Tree Advisory Committee, who lobbied and conspired behind the scenes to save the cedar and allegedly broke open government laws in the process.
“Dishonest.” “Unfair.” “Arrogant.” That was how councilmembers described the conduct of Bob Cunningham, who has since resigned from the committee and triggered an investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Goldman, who suffers from painful spinal stenosis and limited mobility, submitted her application August 3, arguing that the 70-something-year-old tree and its bulbous roots made accessing her driveway and walkway difficult. Goldman said she hated to remove the healthy tree, as she’s lived at the house for 35 years and always given it good care, but she now worried about tripping over the uneven ground. She offered to plant another tree in its place.
The Street Tree Advisory Committee (STAC) voted 5-0 to deny Goldman’s petition, countering she could make accessibility improvements to her front yard without sacrificing one of the neighborhood’s finest specimens. The committee’s recommendation then went to the Parks and Recreation Commission, which deadlocked at 3-3. After 60 days, per city rules, the tied vote defaulted to an approval to take out the cedar. Over two dozen of Goldman’s neighbors, citing concerns for her health, had written the Commission in support of her.
It was then that Cunningham, a landscape architect who’d served on STAC for 14 years and still currently sits on the city’s Architectural Board of Review, took it upon himself to file an appeal of the Commission’s approval in an apparent conflict of interest and violation of government ethics rules. Cunningham privately notified the other STAC members of his intention via email, secretly strategized with city staff, and even started a collection to help him pay the $300 fee. Unrelated tree removal appeals were also discussed.
No one on the email chains, including Nathan Slack, the city’s urban forest superintendent, spoke up. As if those optics weren’t bad enough, Cunningham also waved off Goldman’s petition as “an old lady’s health issues” and suggested her request was simply a matter of “convenience.”
In her comments Tuesday, Goldman ― a bereavement counselor at Hospice of Santa Barbara and clinical supervisor for the Rape Crisis Center ― took Cunningham to task. “I am disappointed that the city appoints citizen advisors who openly dismiss and deride fellow citizens by conflating accessibility, a civil right, with convenience,” she said. “This is a personal safety issue.” As to the “old lady” comment, Goldman fumed. “That’s a lot of -isms ― ageism, ableism, sexism ― in one sentence.”
Goldman also blasted the process by which the appeal reached the City Council, wondering how its members could even be considering it if the road getting there was so pockmarked with impropriety. “How can homeowners be expected to follow the city’s rules and regulations when members of the committees, before which homeowners appear, don’t?” she asked, before turning her attention to Slack. “Why is city staff permitted to behave in dishonest ways with total lack of transparency?”
Cunningham attempted to defend his comments. “I understand how Ms. Goldman has been offended by what I said, but I meant no offense,” he began. “I am 75 years old. I have many old friends, many friends who are old, and many friends who are old ladies. My best friend is an old lady, and we’ve been married for 34 years.” Cunningham, however, also doubled down on his insistence that Goldman was only considering her own comfort. “Essentially, Ms. Goldman’s request is based solely on convenience, disregarding the benefits the tree provides to the neighborhood and larger urban forest.”
Cunningham admitted his back-door dealings were inappropriate. “I absolutely made mistakes, and with regard to the Fair Political Practices Commission, I may end up paying a penalty, for which I will be sorry, I’m sure,” he said. “But I’m not sorry for pursuing this appeal, because I believe it has merit and I do not want to drop it.” As he fell on his sword, he made one last comment about Goldman and her health. “Removing the tree won’t make her pain go away,” he said.
Councilmember Michael Jordan bristled at the statement. “Maybe not,” he said, “but it would potentially allow a 66-year-old woman to extend living independently at her house.” Nevertheless, Jordan continued, he couldn’t in good conscience vote to remove the tree as he, like the majority of the other councilmembers, didn’t think Goldman had sufficiently explored other ways of making her front yard and driveway more navigable. During site visits, staff had suggested she could prune the cedar’s roots, repave her front walkway, widen the driveway, and so on.
Still, Jordan said, he resented the way certain city representatives had conducted themselves during the appeal process. Jordan and the other councilmembers never referred to Slack or Cunningham by name, but it was clear to whom they were referring. “You have a staff member talking to people behind the scenes,” he said, referencing potential violations of the Brown Act, which prohibits public officials from discussing legislative issues in private, “and you have an appointed city member acting in a condescending and tone-deaf manner toward Ms. Goldman and her predicament. … This is really just a mess we find ourselves in.”
Councilmembers Friedman, Harmon, and Sneddon and Mayor Cathy Murillo echoed Jordan, explaining they harbored “strong concerns” about how the appeal was handled but still believed Goldman should explore alternative remedies. “There are options for the resident to live there and for the tree to remain,” Murillo said. Nevertheless, she said, “Shame that has been brought on the process and the city. We’re supposed to have integrity and conduct ourselves with integrity.” Murillo promised inquiries would be made and appropriate actions taken.
Councilmembers Oscar Gutierrez and Alejandra Gutierrez (no relation) voted in Goldman’s favor and empathized with her ill feelings toward the city. “I want to apologize for this entire experience you’ve had to go through,” Oscar said. “We will address the problems that have been talked about tonight.”
Pit, that approach doesn’t work in California, land of the “do as I say not as I do”.
When the government can control all aspects of the individuals life including what they can do on their own property, it begins to go in the direction of Fascism. Remember when the local planning commission/ARB tried to strike down the landscape plan and essentially penalize Chick Filet, as a result of the political/social views of the corporate owner?? Our local government wields way too much power and thinks way too much of themselves. You can see it in many different ways locally. This is ever so clear in trying to penalize a handicapped woman that needs to remove a massive tree from HER tiny front yard. Pathetic !
This is unfortunately what people are forced to do when the City acts unreasonably and punishes good citizens.
The tree is on private property. Just cut it down. We pay the salaries of city council. In return they attempt to micromanage our lives. This city has big problems, e.g. a dying downtown core, rampant homelessness, fires along highway 101 and railway tracks, people suffering through joblessness because of covid. We need to elect leaders who are capable of setting proper priorities and solving real problems.
Bottom line… it’s HER property. Her choice. Anything else is NOT the Land of the Free.
She needs to spend the money and hire someone to: Chop it down. “Oops, sorry I asked the guys to trim it and we had a miscommunication” (preferably on a Friday or Saturday).
D-O-N-E
Otherwise the fools at “THE CITY” will find many many ways to screw you over, lady.
This is SO wrong! One commissioner went way beyond the bounds of how he should have behaved — and that is not a true picture of the entire appeal process at all! In fact, having watched (but not participated in) many of these appeals, they are detailed-oriented and thoughtful, working hard to balance the rights of the public AND the urban forest we have in Santa Barbara and the rights of the homeowner, noting that owners can move; trees can not.
In this case the really disgraceful thing was how two councilmembers refused to follow the law which required certain conditions to be met before the appeal could be rejected and the 70-year-old tree removed. The other 5 councilmembers, all expressing sympathy for the homeowner, but pointing out she had options to move her trash barrels (the cause of the request) including arranging with Marborg on its weekly work to empty the barrels close to the house, as they do all over town.
What was shocking was how Councilmember Alejandra Gutierrez, especially, seemed to fail to understand that her role was not to opine and vote on how she felt for the homeowner but to apply the clearly-written ordinance to the facts.
My neighbor one street over did exactly that- paved over his front yard. No permits. No one complained. When dealing with the City, it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Having worked with the city on a project or two, I can tell you the experience was disgusting. I feel for Mrs Goldman. We live here, invest in our communities, and get treated like a piece of wet garbage. I wish more people had the opportunity to experience how cruel our city can be, maybe then we could have enough people speak up and trigger some change. I am in favor of keeping the tree but the this was handled is just wrong.
RHS, the City does have jurisdiction over removal of a tree that is in the front setback of a property — and the distance for that setback varies depending on the zoning and the house itself, whether or not two stories. The owner wanted it removed because it was difficult for her to move her trash barrels to the street; the street tree advisory committee voted 5-0 in favor of the appeal and to not allow the removal; the parks/rec as a whole tie – voted. This before the council was a “quasi-judicial” hearing; had it been a judicial hearing, the tie vote would have meant that the underlying vote supporting the appeal would have prevailed. In Santa Barbara, it means that the appeal failed. Probably, imho, what should happen is that the ordinance needs to be changed so that a tie vote does not overturn a majority vote of the committee that is knowledgeable about trees.
Lash is redoing the sidewalk corners in my neighborhood, and when they had trouble with a bottlebrush tree, they just cut it down. No permits, no appeals, no nothing. Do what you want with your tree and tell them you are just following the City’s example. If the City wants to plant trees on top of your sewer lateral, the least they could do is pay for the damage it causes.
I have also had run ins with this jerkface…like planting a fresh sapling in front of my house, in a small vacant 3×3 square. A Peruvian tree that will reach upwards of 200 feet. 3 years later, it has blocked out all sun on my front lawn, killing parts of the lawn and all of my garden. I called to have them cut the 15 foot long branch that was encroaching on our property. NOPE. Called again, it’s now about to touch my roof, you cut it or i cut it. Simple. It touched my roof, i cut the damned branch off. This guy and the entire “tree committee” are a waste of our time and tax dollars. The city council during a spell in the 1950s is responsible for planting all of these non native trees in town. My neighborhood suffers from these trees. Sap dropping on us, our cars and lawns, roots destroying plumbing and sidewalks that go unrepaired until someone is injured and sues. Serious, the leadership in town just sucks right now across the board. Cathy and the entire city council need to go. Especially Guitierrez…that guys a jerk
If I owned a property in the city of SB, I would be highly motivated to remove all of the trees with the potential to become large enough to fall under the rules described in this article. I think the city rules result in the destruction of countless trees every year for this reason. While property owners may love a tree in their yard, they can’t take the risk of allowing it to grow too large or the city will effectively claim ownership of part of their property. It’s the law of unintended consequences.
The city is charged w/protecting our URBAN FOREST. The law is that we do not remove healthy trees because they have become “an inconvenience”. The Lorax says, “I speak for the trees”. Some one has to ! Our trees are what make our town beautiful and our air breathable. I am grateful to the people who volunteer their time to “speak for the trees”.
The deep state is alive at well at the city, county, state and federal levels. A consequence of unelected bureaucrats with too much power and over regulation of the public.
City requirements are triggered when a tree has a trunk more than 4″ in diameter and is within the front setback (varies from 10-35ft) of the residence. Seems like the standard setback is 25′ from curb. Homeowners beware. I wanted to plant an oak tree in my setback but am rethinking this as oak trees trigger additional requirements.