Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-25-2016 TC correspondence (Schmidt)From: Richard Schmidt < Sent: Monday, July 25, 2016 3:15 PM To: Advisory Bodies Cc: Combs, Ron ✓ Subject: Tree Committee today's meeting JUIwi Attachments: Dear Tree Committee.pdf July 25, 2016 Dear Tree Committee, I'd like to thank the Tree Committee for its willingness at its May meeting to study the trees at 71 Palomar for heritage tree potential, and add my voice to those of others dismayed that the city has prevented the committee from doing such proactive study since shedding light on controversy seems so much better than ignoring it. In the intervening weeks, as this project has continued down its path to what the city staff regards as certain approval, a couple of specific issues that should be of concern both to the Tree Committee and the general public have revealed themselves. These are those two concerns: 1. Role of Tree Committee in development review. We have discovered the Tree Committee, the city's citizen tree experts and advocates, play no role in development review when existing trees are present on a development site. This seems wrong. In fact, this seems like precisely the time the Tree Committee needs to be involved front and center. We are told that staff envision no role for your committee in evaluating the cutting of up to 51 mature trees on Palomar. They tell us the Architectural Review Commission will make all decisions about the trees, and that your committee will only get involved if the ARC and city arborist disagree about cutting any specific trees. We are horrified, and I should hope that your committee would be also. We believe that others, including members of the city council, share our dismay at the way the committee is being shut out of this important public decision-making. It seems, then, that with the spotlight currently on this issue, it would be an opportune time for the committee to propose to the council that development review procedures which currently shut out the Tree Committee be revised to put the committee front and center in evaluating trees on development sites. I'd suggest you approach the council on this matter, and ask for procedural improvements that allow you to do the job you signed up for. 2. Revision of Heritage Tree ordinance. We have also discovered a flaw in the enabling ordinance for heritage tree study and designation. When we approached you in May we were under the impression that private heritage tree designation by the council required owner signoff. But upon doing further research after that meeting, we found there is, according to the city's "HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INFORMATION PACKET AND FORM," provision for required heritage tree designation on development sites. Here is what that form says about 3 categories of heritage tree designations: "9. 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." When we proposed the city act upon category "c" for Palomar, the idea was shot down by the Community Development Director and the City Attorney, on grounds it wasn't according to the enabling ordinance. So, clearly if this important route for protecting heritage trees is not itself protected by corrective legislation, we will lose it. (Remember also that for Palomar, the initial study of environmental impact states that there are "no haritnaP tri -Pc" nnrd thPrefnrP it's C)K to rn,t rdnwn all of the tree,, the develnner want.,, to cut — sn this issue is nne of chicken and egg.) I would urge the committee to propose an amendment to the heritage tree legislation to correct this flaw that has now been exposed. To show how easily this could be done, I've suggested some sample language, in underlined italics below. What follows is the current enabling ordinance, with a proposed solution for the lack of specific language about "required cooperation." 12.24.160 Heritage trees. A. The city recognizes the important role trees have played in the history and development of San Luis Obispo and recognizes that a wide variety of trees can grow in its unique and temperate climate. B. Any healthy tree within the city limits may be proposed as a heritage tree. The city arborist and tree committee review each proposed heritage tree and, with the owner's consent, recommend suitable candidates to the city council for official designation as heritage trees. In addition to voluntary designations, herityge tree designation may he res uirccl during the development review process as Bart of evah satin etistint r trees on a develMment site. C. The city shall protect and maintain all designated heritage trees. Heritage trees shall be pruned according to a schedule developed and approved by the public works director. All interim maintenance shall be the responsibility of the property owner. (Ord. 1544 § 1 (part), 2010) Thank you for your consideration of these two points. I hope you will feel moved to act upon them. Sincerely, Richard Schmidt For your convenience I've also attached this letter as a file.