The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/27/2023 Item 5a, Hanlon From:jhanlon < To:Advisory Bodies Subject:Tree Committee Correspondence - Item 5A Attachments:Agenda Item 5A - 150 Chorro.pdf This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Please find the attached letter to Tree Committee Regarding Agenda Item 5A 1 ITEM 5.a 150 CHORRO STREET TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION This letter is regarding the tree removal request at 150 Chorro Street. For the past 10 years I have watched the urban forest at our end of West Street (West and Chorro) steadily decline due to repeated unpermitted tree removals at 150 Chorro Street, coupled with the City’s lack of enforcement of formally established migration measures. Since most of the current Committee members were not on Committee during past events, I want to provide some history so that the Committee can make an informed decision on the application that is in front of you tonight. I also want to inform the Committee of outstanding mitigation measures that need to be addressed to ensure that the urban forest is being appropriately managed at this location. The current owner moved in in approximately 2012 and immediately removed at least six mature trees without a permit, one being a large pine adjacent to the one in question. The other removals included multiple mature shrubs, a very mature Chinese Elm, Maple, and Fir. Two trees remained on the property, a 36‐inch walnut, and the pine. In 2017 the owner applied for removal of the 36‐inch, +/‐100 ft tall walnut, which was denied. In November 2018, the walnut tree was damaged by severe pruning in violation of the tree regulations. In April 2019, what was left of the tree from the first pruning was damaged even more severely. In October 2019 the tree was fully removed with no permit, no input from the Committee, and with no public notice. The pruning and removal was discussed at multiple Committee meetings and the Committee carried a motion at the 12‐10‐2019 meeting to require remediation for the improper pruning through fines or replanting of trees on the property. At the August 10, 2020 Special Committee meeting, Mr. Combs provided an update to the Committee and reported that the City had established mitigation measures to compensate for the improper pruning and loss of the walnut. Specifically, additional plantings were required in the backyard as mitigation. Mr. Combs’ publicly‐announced determination was that a specimen tree (>24‐inch box) would be required to mitigate the loss of such a large tree that was important to the community. A link to the video of this statement is provided at the end of this letter. According to Mr. Combs’ statements on video at the meeting, the mitigation plantings were scheduled for Fall 2020. It is now 2023, and to my knowledge no mitigation plantings have occurred in the back yard to date. Since that time, tree removals have continued at this property. In September 2021, I contacted the City arborist about an orange tree in the green belt that was also damaged by improper and severe pruning (>30% of the canopy), and was eventually removed based on “poor health.” The tree was not in poor health until it was damaged by severe pruning. I was told by City staff that the City would work with a non‐profit and the property owner to install a replacement tree close by. To my knowledge this has not happened. Now, the owner is proposing to remove the last mature tree on the property because he considers it an “eyesore.” It is pruned somewhat asymmetrically by the utility, but is clearly in good health. If there is an issue with the way the tree is trimmed, the City should address the pruning technique with the utility. The utility must follow proper arboriculture practices as required by their permit with the City under MC 12.24.120. A pruning issue with the utility? should not be addressed by approving the homeowner to remove the tree entirely. The tree is not an eyesore in comparison to the property itself, and the neighborhood values the look of the tree, to not only draw attention away from the condition and upkeep of the property, but to screen the utility pole. Fundamentally, the tree does not meet the criteria for removal for convenience. Approvals for removal for owner convenience shall be based on the following criteria: 1. Size of Tree. The scale of the tree shall be considered, as well as the size of the tree's canopy. Larger, more visually prominent trees may have a higher preservation priority than smaller, less visually prominent trees; This tree is large and prominent and shields views of the Utility pole. It is the only remaining mature tree on the property and provides some visual benefit to the appearance of the property overall. The tree benefits the neighborhood as a whole, which has seen a steady decline in mature trees. 2. Location of Tree on Private Property. The location of the tree on private property shall be considered. Trees located in a private rear yard, which are not highly visible from the public right‐of‐way, may have a lower preservation priority than trees with a high visual impact to the neighborhood; This tree is located in the front yard, and is highly visible on the corner of two major streets. It has a high visual impact to the neighborhood. 3. Forestry Best Practice. The number of healthy trees that a given parcel of land will support shall be considered, and whether removal would enhance the health or survival of remaining trees. Applications that increase biodiversity of native trees and tree age distribution within a given area are preferred; This property has historically supported many more trees than currently exist. This tree is the only remaining mature tree on the property. Again, if there is an issue with the pruning by the utility, it should be addressed with the utility, not through removal by the owner for convenience. In summary, we have lost a significant amount of urban forest and character of our neighborhood due to unpermitted and illegal tree removals at 150 Chorro Street, and due to the City’s failure to ensure that the mitigation measures that were established for the prior violations were completed. I request the Tree Committee take the following actions tonight: 1. Deny the current removal request, since it does not meet the criteria for removal for convenience or good arboreal practice. In fact, much of the language in the regulations specifies why trees such as this should be preserved. The owner should be made aware of the limitations on hard pruning, and City staff should monitor the tree over time to ensure the tree is not pruned into bad health like the previous other trees on the property. 2. Direct City staff to ensure completion of previously established mitigation measures for the prior violations as directed at a. the 12/10/2019 Committee meeting: (https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=104257&dbid=0&repo=CityCler k (business item 11)), b. the 4/27/2020 Committee meeting: (https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=102067&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk (scroll to 3:50)), c. and as summarized most recently in the 8/10/2020 Special Committee meeting: (https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=102067&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk (scroll forward to 1:27:00)). These public meetings and prior determinations by the City Arborist indicate that mitigation by replacement with a minimum 24‐inch box specimen in the back yard should have been completed by Fall 2020. I ask that a follow‐up report from staff be agendized at the next meeting to ensure that backyard replacement planting occurs. 3. Direct City staff to facilitate completion of replacement plantings for the orange tree that was severely pruned into poor health and ultimately removed, as indicated in the 10/26/2021 email to me from the City Arborist. I would request a street tree somewhere on West Street to begin to re‐establish the urban forest/canopy. Again, I ask that a follow‐up report from staff be agendized at the next meeting to ensure that this is completed. I am including below photos prior to, and after the owner began removing trees in 2012 for your reference. I would be happy to provide further information at the Commitee’s request. Thank you, Jon Hanlon 150 Chorro ‐ December 2020 January 2021 150 Chorro prior to illegal pruning/removals Unpermitted Removals First Walnut Pruning >30% Canopy Second Walnut Pruning Orange tree pruned into poor health and subsequently removed Miscellaneous