HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2016 TC correspondence (Cooper)From: Advisory Bodies
To: Allan Cooper
Subject: RE: Public Comment Before the CHC Addresses Their Agenda items
From: Allan Cooper [
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 12:33 AM
To: Advisory Bodies Jul 25 1016
Subject: Public Comment Before the CHC Addresses Their Agenda items
To: SLO Tree Committee
From: Allan Cooper
Re: 71 Palomar
I would like to apprise you of the fact that the City Attorney has told us that she can exclude your input from
reaching any other advisory body and, perhaps more importantly, she can prevent you from agendizing topics
for future meetings. I am nevertheless asking you to test this thesis. I would encourage members of the
committee to agendize 71 Palomar after looking at the trees. It is certainly within your purview to question City
policy regarding any advisory body's power to place an item on a future agenda. This is an open question.
It should be clear to you that you presently lack the ability to have an outside arborist evaluate the trees at 71
Palomar and that you have been shut out of process of determining whether these trees qualify for heritage
status. You have also been denied access to the City Arborist's tree report which was produced over a month
ago.
Lacking the Tree Committee's ability to place 71 Palomar on any future agenda, I am urging the Chair and
other Tree Committee members to attend the August 1, 2016 ARC conceptual review meeting and speak about
these trees as private citizens. This is a right exercised freely by other advisory bodies.
You could also recommend to the ARC that they ask the City Council to have the trees or cultural landscape
agendized for one of their future meetings. This discussion should not be decided behind closed doors but
decided in a public setting. And this discussion should address the following policies:
1. The City Arborist's unilateral decision-making ability. Does he exercise too much power? Does he
unnecessarily diminish the role of the Tree Committee?
2. The Tree Committee's right to initiate a discussion on any issue.
3. The role that an arborist consultant plays in determining the final outcome. Also, discussion could center
on how these arborist consultants are selected.
4. The future of the Heritage Tree Program. Are we entirely dependent on the public to identify trees
suitable for this program or would it be better that the Tree Committee be more proactive in this regard?
5. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how trees maintain biodiversity, i.e., the
role certain tree species play in providing refuge, nesting grounds and pollination pastures for a wide
range of insects and animals?
6. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address the role trees play in sequestering
greenhouse gases? By the way, some species do this better than others.
7. Can't it be the responsibility of the Tree Committee to address how various species of trees are not only
more drought tolerant but how older specimens use less water than newly planted specimens?
8. Clarification is needed on existing, ambiguous and conflicting policies. For example look at the
following link: littp://www.slocity.org/home/sliowdocument?id=4743
This link states the following:
"The Tree Committee proposes the following plan to formalize this Heritage Tree Program, so that citizens and
groups may participate in this community program."
"HOW TO APPLY FOR DESIGNATION
a. Submit Heritage Tree proposal and agreement forms to Urban Forest Services
b. Proposal will be reviewed by Urban Forest Services staff
c. Proposal will be reviewed by Tree Committee
d. Proposal will be reviewed by City Council — adopt resolution — designation as Heritage Tree"
The Tree Committee and the Council should be asking the following questions: When did the Tree Committee
propose this plan and when does it become effective? Who comprises the "Urban Forest Services staff'?
"There are three categories of Heritage Trees:
a. Public trees — parks, public buildings, playgrounds, etc.
b. Voluntary cooperation — privately owned trees.
c. Required cooperation — tree preservation in new developments, etc.
The Tree Committee and the Council should also be asking the following questions: What does "required
cooperation" for new developments mean? Does this override the owner's consent?
In conclusion there is presently a policy vacuum that surrounds the evaluation of Heritage Trees and Cultural
Landscapes and I would advise that you get to the bottom of this. Thank you.
Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo