Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-12-2016 PC, SchmidtProposed 71 Palomar Tree Slaughter Dear Tree Committee, I urge you to take your time in deliberating on this project, continue your deliberations for another month, while you conduct your own independent research. It is very confusing to the public, and I’m sure to you as well, that staff is attempting now to limit your “purview” for this dreadful project proposal to taking and offering comments on the Initial Study of Environmental Impact. I find it confusing because it seems the city is spreading review of California Environmental Quality Act document review far and wide among advisory bodies, most of which have not been rigorously trained in performing such legalistic review. I suspect your committee may be feeling a bit befuddled by this “death-by-process” approach of our current city staff. (In past times, CEQA review was performed by the Planning Commission, period, and its members were well trained in the nuance of the law, of what could and couldn’t be demanded in terms of project modification per CEQA, etc.) I also find it confusing because your committee’s purview should be to find ways to protect wonderful trees, such as this unique urban forest grove, not simply to acquiesce in their wholesale removal. As we are all well aware, your committee attempted a courageous action earlier this year (the study of this site’s 59 trees to see which you thought might have heritage tree potential), but were shut down by staff. Staff has also railroaded and manipulated both the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review Commission on this project. I do hope your courage persists, and you are willing to do more than the limited bureaucratic signoff on this tree massacre that staff has assigned you to do. This would be a fitting response to staff’s idea that our city is a government of, by and for staff and their developer clients rather than of, by and for the people. In a good city, an incredible site like 71 Palomar would be cherished and protected, not viewed as just so much clearable, bulldozable nondescript land on which to erect a generic and ugly LA-style apartment complex. That such is not our city’s choice speaks volumes about what our city has become. So, please, act courageously in facing this proposed tree massacre, recognize this site is emblematic of the things that make our city special, and do what you can to protect it. I would suggest the following approach: 1. Revisit your previous desire to study the trees on site for potential heritage qualities. This important task can best be done by you. It’s not going to be done by the applicant, who has proposed some trees he doesn’t want to remove for heritage status merely as a manipulative strategy to gain approval. 2. Disapprove the current project’s building footprint on grounds no effort was made in designing it to accommodate any of the site’s wonderful urban forest. (An early lesson for student architects is recognizing the importance of site-appropriate design. This architect apparently missed that lesson.) Decide which parts of the grove must be preserved, and tell the designer to accommodate them. (Please note that this must be based on more than simply an esthetic review of the trees – biology is an implicit part of the whole picture of what needs to be preserved – see below. Also, please try not to reflect the general current prejudice against eucs – these are specially valuable trees.) (I don’t know whether staff has told you this, but the ARC was critical of both the footprint and massing, and asked them to be substantially revised. The staff report before you doesn’t indicate this. So, if you were to ask footprint changes, you’d not be going out on a limb alone.) 3. If, against all common sense, this project does proceed, please disapprove the proposed tree replanting program. The species selection is junky. The bulk of the trees appear to be Tristania conferta, which is one of the ugliest, scrawniest parking lot trees around, will never grow to provide the sort of habitat that’s being removed, and is a ridiculous replacement for the arboreal beauty on the site today. A replanted site should have the potential to reach the full extent of the urban forest that exists today, and to provide the habitat functions it provides (see comments on IS-ND below). 4. Finally, note that many of the proposed “replacement trees” are to be planted on a parcel not prospectively to be owned by the applicant (the triangle at Palomar and Luneta), and you have every right to demand to know what prevents future separate development and tree removal on that site prior to signing onto this odd arrangement. Comments on the IS-ND for 71 Palomar. The original IS-ND for this project was a shoddy document, full of inaccuracies and omissions, and after months of citizen complaint the city agreed to redo it. We were led to believe this would be a good faith effort to produce a first rate document. Unfortunately, it has turned out to be more of the same, just another layer of gooey icing on the same old cake. It is this document that now comes before you. I will confine my current comments on it to sections that pertain to trees. Tree Reports and Narrative Analysis A. We were led to believe there would be a substantive study of the individual trees to determine which might be of heritage quality and which are fully capable, arboriculturally, of preservation within a revised project. Unfortunately, none of that took place, and we have mainly a rehash of the tree report (A&T) done by the applicant, which is not a CEQA document even though staff persists in misrepresenting that it is by including it within the CEQA folder in your agenda packet. • The “condition” evaluations in the Rincon report, as in the A&T report, are purely subjective, and provide no substantive basis for deciding the fate of the individual trees. • The report, instead of providing basis for judging individual trees, simply attempts to justify the wholesale cutting of this urban forest grove by going no deeper than the cut/leave designations of trees in the original project application, which had changed prior to the Rincon study, yet is not reflected there. The Rincon report is thus mere rationalization for wholesale tree removal. • The report does “discover” additional trees, but then suggests they all be cut down. • The Rincon report includes the same sort of careless misidentification of tree species as the original IS-ND, which failed even to mention the presence of Araucaria on the site. The Rincon report speaks of a “Canary Island Pine” to be preserved (is there even one on the site?) when it probably means Canary Island Palm. • The revised report re-endorses the original’s ridiculous contention that only 4 trees are worth saving: two palm trees (among the least significant tree species on the site) one of which isn’t even on the site but is on the Valencia parking lot easement owned by the fraternity property; a single eucalyptus, arguably the least significant among the grove’s eucs; and a single Araucaria, the smaller of the two, with no explanation why the larger perfectly healthy Araucaria is not equally worthy. The Araucaria issue is emblematic of the shoddy tree work represented here. The smaller tree to be preserved appears to be smaller because it’s been topped; it appears to have a multiple leader as a result – and this correctible flaw isn’t even mentioned in the report. The larger tree is criticized because it’s “stressed;” for sure, nobody’s cared for these trees for years; give the thing some TLC and it will be lush again. • By contrast, the extensive Eucalyptus plantings are dismissed on grounds they were poorly trimmed in the past. No mention is made of an obvious corrective that could save most of them: safety pruning. Esthetics – Views of Trees. B. The Rincon report states: “CEQA distinguishes between public and private views, and focuses on whether a project would affect the public environment…”, and then dismisses any impact on public views. This is done by sleight of hand. • The photos Rincon uses to make its point don’t make its point. • For example, Photo 2 looking down Luneta has a red arrow allegedly pointing to the site that doesn’t in fact point at anything; but the photo shows a line of skyline trees straight down the street and to its left, all of which will be removed. How can that be said not to impact public views? • Photo 3 is taken from behind trees at the Village, which conveniently block view of the skyline trees above, thereby apparently proving to Rincon’s mind that there is no visual impact. However, move over a few feet to where the Village trees don’t block things, look straight up Palomar from Ramona, and the lost skyline tree view would have been obvious. • In Photos 4 and 5, virtually every skyline tree looking straight ahead would be removed, also indicating loss of viewshed amenity to this project. Rincon’s photos simply don’t make the case their words allege. The photos show there would be huge loss of public views towards the site. C. Most incredibly the Rincon IS-ND on page 11 asserts the biggest view lie of all. It asserts that the site “is not within a City designated [sic] scenic vista” as designated per Figure 11 in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. (Contrary to its name “general plan,” there’s nothing “general” about a general plan – its specific provisions carry the weight of a law.) • Figure 11 designates the length of Foothill Boulevard as a scenic highway, whose views to right, left and straight ahead, are to be protected. • The site’s skyline trees are prominently visible from several locations along Foothill: This entire horizon of skyline trees seen from Foothill would be removed under the “insignificant view impact” story put out by Rincon. D. Had Rincon done a more thorough job of assessing distant views, it would have found examples such as this at the intersection of Felton and Ferrini, considerably to the north of the project site: The Mormon Church tower can be plainly seen below the entire skyline of trees this project would remove. Biology – Impact of Tree Removal This site is primo bird habitat. One of the most frustrating aspects of the current revise of the IS-ND is that the original was so deficient in its assessment of bird life on the site – falsely claiming one would expect to find nothing more than sparrows and doves on such a site when even the most cursory inspection would reveal so much more, including active raptor nests (hawks and owls). After months of criticism from a number of citizens, the city realized it had problem. It was our contention that the issue of birds was integrally wound up with that of tree removal. So Michael Codron said he’d have parts of the IS-ND redone to correct the deficiencies, and led us to believe our concerns would be dealt with. What a cruel hoax of a response the Rincon report constitutes. Our concerns about birds have still not been dealt with responsibly, and the city has merely kicked the can down the project review timeline, so that if at this point a responsible bird study were to be done, it would take another year. Here are a few of our unresolved concerns. E. Birds are protected under the public trust doctrine that requires permitting agencies to look out for their welfare. Some birds are also protected by international treaties which our city cannot ignore. One would think, therefore, that an initial study justifying a negative declaration of environmental impact on birds would look very carefully at bird habitat and use on this heavily forested study site. This initial study utterly fails to do so, and it seriously misrepresents habitat conditions and avian residents on the site. This apparently stems from the lack of site study by a competent ornithologist. F. We in the neighborhood are well aware of the abundant avian use of this site – for nesting, for roosting, for winter shelter of migratory and native species, for feeding, and for general habitat. It is an avian oasis of great value. Its neighborhood owl-nesting habitat is both famous and important for neighborhood public health as the owls suppress rat populations in the palms developers have planted in abundance to “tropicalize” their nearby developments. G. Here is what the IS-ND says on birds: “Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed” habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions of the City. . . Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist primarily of urban adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources. . . The mature landscaping present at the project site provides the tree and shrub habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species discussed above.” [Initial study pp. 12-13] This is utter nonsense. The IS-ND overlooks the presence on this site of a century-old urban forest located just a few hundred feet from open countryside; it is therefore not in any way an “urban/developed” habitat of scattered miscellaneous small trees and shrubs such as one would find in an intensely-developed part of a city, or such as one would find in the proposed development after the existing forest is clearcut. H. Rebuttal to above from IS-ND on birds. I accompanied several others with better birding skills than mine on very brief “sidewalk surveys” of the site at ecologically inopportune times in early July – i.e, during neither nesting season when site use for avian reproduction is heavy nor during migratory season when large numbers of part-time avian visitors are known to join year-round natives in the site’s trees. We visited early, mid-day, and at dusk. We were limited to a sidewalk survey because applicants have filed an intimidation lawsuit (SLAPP suit) against opponents of their project to keep them off the property itself, for the explicit purpose of concealing habitats that could thus be observed. We have requested the city intervene through the development process to permit our expert’s access to conduct a better study, but the city has refused. We further asked that the city include a year-long bird survey in the revised initial statement’s scope of work, and again the city has refused. There is thus no effort at a bird survey in any of the city’s environmental documents. A sidewalk survey, from the public right of way can only assess a very small part of the site’s habitat value. Even so, here are – in contrast to the “expert’s” nonsense about house sparrows and collared doves – a few verified observations we came up with in about one hour’s overall observation in the slack season for bird activity at this site. Species observed inhabiting the site: 1. Oak titmouse. 2. Hooded oriole. 3. Scrub jay. 4. Pacific slope flycatcher. 5. Orange crowned warbler. 6. Warbling vireo. 7. Chestnut-backed chickadee. 8. Band-tailed pigeon (a native pigeon). 9. Crow. 10. Kestrel. 11. Anna’s hummingbird. 12. Acorn woodpecker. 13. House finch. 14. House sparrow. 15. Cassin’s kingbird. 16. Mourning dove. 17. Downy woodpecker. 18. American robin. 19. Turkey vultures. In addition, we verified two very important nesting uses of the property: 1. Two hawk nests are plainly visible in eucalyptus trees proposed for removal along Luneta. It thus boggles my mind that any supposedly reputable “survey” by Rincon could state that no nests were visible on the site. During a late spring neighborhood event on Luneta, red-tailed hawks were observed tending young in one of the nests. Since we cannot enter the site, we cannot say for sure there are other raptor or large bird nests in the more distant eucalyptus, but it seems very likely there are. It is clear that this site is important raptor nesting habitat. The initial study’s failure to mention this raises questions about the extent of its writer’s actual site observation since any untrained casual observer can spot the nests along Luneta. 2. A perennial barn owl nest site in the palm (Phoenix canariensis) in front of the Sandford house is notorious, in the good sense, in the neighborhood. Each year parents raise kids there, and on summer evenings the cute-faced noisy kids can be seen practicing their flying with short hops between the palm, the Italian stone pine, coast live oak, and araucarias. As mentioned above, these owls are not only a source of neighborhood pride, but also important public health vector control agents nature provides for free. Another important avian use of the property is as a major roost for turkey vultures. Each evening they fly into the eucalyptus behind the Sandford house, roost overnight, and in the morning spread out through the property’s 59 trees to stretch, warm up, and get ready for another day aloft. One summer morning we counted two dozen of these huge birds at 71 Palomar. My theory is these trees, with their dense foliage, provide exactly the sort of protective roost vultures need and seek. In the summer evening, they can be seen gathering in the less dense eucs behind the Mormon Church, preen for a time, then glide over to the trees at 71 Palomar and disappear into the foliage, where they are visible only to the seriously observant eye. We believe our snapshot sidewalk survey during a relatively “sterile” period in early July merely scratches the surface of this site’s avian activity. A proper environmental study of avian use of the property would take a year, to visit the site repeatedly to document seasonal variations and events. Why didn’t the city undertake such a study instead of endorsing the initial study’s clear nonsense? Had such study been initiated at project application, the year would be well along by now, and we’d have a lot of professional information instead of a mere sidewalk study by residents versus a non-study by the city’s “experts.” An initial study that so completely misrepresents avian conditions is insufficient grounds for granting a negative declaration of environmental impact. Conclusion. I urge the Tree Committee to incorporate these comments and considerations into its deliberations. I would urge you to take your time. You are under no obligation to render your conclusions today. Today should be the beginning, not the end point, for your study of this project site.