Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/26/2021 Item 2, Cooper Wilbanks, Megan From:Allan Cooper < To:Advisory Bodies; Van Leeuwen, Kyle; Corey, Tyler Subject:Letter to the Planning Commission Attachments:205_25_21...lettertopc.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Kyle and Corey - Would you kindly forward the letter attached below to the Planning Commission? This letter pertains to their May 26, 2021 review of Item #2 - "Review of a Tentative Tract Map to Create 23 Residential Lots on a 4.98 acre lot". Thanks! - Allan 1 To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission Re: May 26, 2021 Item #2 - Review of a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on a 4.98- acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. From: Allan Cooper, et. al., San Luis Obispo CA Date: May 25, 2021 Honorable Chair Jorgensen and Commissioners - The Tree Committee included in their motion a request that the Planning Commission consider the retention of several specific trees onsite. This included one eucalyptus within the creek corridor (#114), and two eucalyptus and one live oak near the southern edge of the property line on proposed lots 23 (#s 33, 34, & 91). Staff does not recommend retention of these trees as retention of the eucalyptus in the creek corridor is inconstant with wildfire mitigation measure W-1, and retention of trees near the southern property line would require a redesign of the stormwater treatment/retention system and changes in lot grading. We disagree with this staff recommendation for two reasons. First, the National Park Service reports on its website that eucalyptus leaves are, in fact, fire resistant: “The live foliage [of the eucalyptus] proved fire resistant…” (http://www.firescape.us/ coastliveoaks.pdf). This observation is consistent with a comprehensive book about trees, (Colin Tudge, 2005): “… many trees are highly fireproof, like redwoods and eucalyptus…” (page 376). The living wood does not burn easily. Dead leaf and bark litter are the main source of fuel for fires. Fuel loads can be reduced by removing leaf and bark litter on the ground, without destroying the living tree. In fact, eucalyptus trees may actually fight fires by acting as a windbreak and blocking flying embers. Many people think of the devastating Oakland Hills fires, but an inquiry there noted that the eucalyptus trees were not the primary hazard. Second, staff is concerned should these trees be retained that this will involve a “redesign of the stormwater treatment/retention system and changes in lot grading”. Is it the City’s intention to insure that no project that comes before the City be “redesigned” as a result of advisory body recommendations to improve the project? We think not! Moreover, before the Tree Committee’s May 17th meeting, we had asked that none of the 17 trees located within the riparian corridor be removed. Trees in riparian areas stabilize stream banks and reduce floodwater velocity, resulting in reduced downstream flood peaks. Moreover, riparian forests support many species of wildlife - wildlife that use this area for food, water, cover, nesting sites, and travel. Of the 17 trees proposed to be removed, 3 included oak trees and 14 acacias. The argument for removing the acacia trees was that they too were deemed to be a fire hazard. Botanists, on the other hand, claim that acacia trees are fire resistant when they are healthy, free of dead wood and well-hydrated. Outside the riparian corridor, we had asked for the preservation of 3 redwood trees with 3-1/2  to 4 foot diameter trunks. In total, the Tree Committee asked for the preservation of 4 trees while we had asked for the preservation of 20 trees. The Tree Committee did not consider our suggestion to relocate some of these trees even though many of the 51 trees proposed for removal (i.e., the palms and oaks) have root structures that lend themselves to being transplanted. Nor did the Tree Committee, over Committee Member Root’s objections, consider continuing this project based on the insufficient information that was provided by the applicant. In conclusion, we are presently going on four dry years of drought with no end in sight. So obviously, maintaining a healthy, carbon sequestering tree, particularly those located within riparian corridors, is preferable to planting new trees. Cal Poly professor Jenn Yost said that a recent student project, using satellite data, showed that San Luis Obispo has only 13% canopy cover, referring to the amount of tree coverage citywide. Is it the City’s intent to reduce this coverage? We hope not! With this in mind, every attempt should be made to work around healthy. carbon sequestering trees in order to preserve them.