HomeMy WebLinkAbout305_13_21...lettertotreecommitteeTo: San Luis Obispo Tree Committee
Re: May 17, 2020 Public Hearing Item Number #1: 468 & 500 Westmont Ave.
Review of the proposed removal of 51 onsite trees and replanting of at
least 20 street trees on site”
From: Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo, CA
Date: May 13, 2021
Honorable Chair Alan Bate and Committee Members -
I am urging you to continue this item. You do not presently have enough information at
your disposal to adequately inform your recommendation. In order for you to have a
better understanding of the developer’s opportunities and constraints, the following
revisions should have originally been made to your submittal package.
1)First of all, the Tree Inventory Data Table in Appendix D fails to identify which trees
will be removed. This would have provided you with the specic Diameter at Breast
Height (DBH) dimensions for each tree removed. All that you can presently rely upon
is simply a range of DBH’s as shown in Table 1: “Trees Subject to Review”.
2)Secondly, the tree removal plan should have been superimposed upon the new plot
plan. This would more clearly show you where there would be opportunities for
saving trees in the event that they might either fall between lots or within street
R.O.W. setbacks.
3)Finally staff states that tree removals are necessary to facilitate grading and drainage
of the proposed project. However, Section C on Sheet C4 & C5 fails to show any new
grading within the creek bank or within the riparian corridor. Moreover, there
appears to be an insignicant amount of grading throughout the length of Section C.
Therefore, the applicant should submit additional site sections that might better
illustrate the developer’s claim that “tree removals are necessary to facilitate grading
and drainage”.
Most concerning is that the applicant is proposing to remove 17 trees located within the
riparian corridor of Twin Ridge Creek. Thirteen of these non-native trees, including 11
acacias, are reputedly being removed for re protection purposes. However, these trees
are more re resistant when they are healthy, free of dead wood and well-hydrated.
Being located within a riparian corridor almost guarantees that these trees will be well-
hydrated and healthy. On the other hand, 7 coastal live oaks, being both native and re
resistant, are also slated for removal. I especially recommend that the 3 coastal live oak
trees #60, #61 and #62 sitting within the 20 foot setback of the riparian corridor be
preserved. Note that the live oak tree #62 has a DBH of 7 inches. Preservation of these
trees should be easy because all three border the southern property line of lot #4.
Outside the riparian zone, the redwood trees #17 and #18 with DBH’s of 47 and 40
inches respectively should be preserved. These trees could share a lot line somewhere in
the vicinity of lots #10 & #11. There doesn’t appear to be any reason why the redwood
tree #23 with a DBH of 48 inches has to be removed as it abuts the southern property
line of lot #16.
Staff has instructed the Tree Committee that they may provide direction to the Planning
Commission and the applicant on specic sizes of compensatory tree plantings for the 34
trees. According to a study conducted by the Los Angeles’ Million Tree Program, tree
mortality for planted trees after 35 years ranges between 17% and 56%. This mortality
rate will probably rise in light of the fact that we are presently going on four dry years of
drought with no end in sight. So obviously, maintaining a healthy mature tree,
particularly those located within riparian corridors, is preferable to planting new trees.
Staff seldom makes the recommendation that some trees slated for removal could be
transplanted. Oak trees and palms are particularly well suited to being transplanted.
Siting a tree not far from its original location will assure that it will thrive in soil that
has the same optimal pH and in locations that share the same lighting conditions.
I know I’m probably“preaching to the choir”when I say this, but many of the residents of
San Luis Obispo are becoming increasingly concerned that the City seems determined to
fast-track the kind of development that eliminates thoughtful, sustainable, and yes,
resilient” design - the kind of design we used to know where every attempt was made to
work around healthy mature trees in order to preserve them. Too often, we’re being
confronted with generic building sites where the land is both mass-graded and clear-cut.
Thank you for listening!