Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-04-2017 Item 16, McLean, RitterCOUNCIL MEETING: y - _ 1 ITEM NO.: _ 1(� APR 0 3 2017 SLO CITY CLERK From: cc me lean [ Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2017 3:25 PM To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil@slocity.org>; CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org> Cc: Pease, Andy <apease@slocity.org>; Gomez, Aaron <agomez@slocity.org>; Rivoire, Dan <DRivoire@slocity.org>; Christianson, Carlyn <cchristianson@slocity.org>; Harmon, Heidi <hharmon@slocity.org> Subject: Dr. Matt Ritter's letter 71 Palomar PLEASE PLACE IN AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE, City Council 4/4/17, 71 Palomar appeal, item #16. Mayor Harmon and Council, Here's Dr. Matt Ritter's letter (Adobe link below) regarding the Arborist's report (hired by the city of SLO). I could not find it in the City's website and think that you would want to read it while considering the Palomar Appeal. The Tree Committee asked for a new tree report after the developer hired a Paso firm ( A&T) which provided a biased & inaccurate evaluation of the beautiful, mature Urban Forest/Cultural Landscape much of which has been on the site for over 100 years. The next report from city -hired Rincon was so substandard that Chairperson of the Tree Committee Dr. Ritter stated "the City should get its money back" at a T.C. meeting. The T.C. wanted a new report done by another firm and requested to see 71 Palomar return to their group but the Tree Committee was circumvented in the process and was not permitted to evaluate the 55 trees (out of 59) slated to be clear-cut since the City is using Rincon's report (minimally modified apparently using Dr. Ritter's letter). On January 30, 2017, the project went to the ARC and got tree removal permission. (Our City Arborist has not done any report on the 55 trees according to CDD director Michael Codron.) The ARC could have realized that they had the power to not make a decision, require another independent, accurate Arborist's report, a biology report and a review by the Tree Committee prior to their decision, but chose instead to barge ahead on their own. A thoughtful design, honoring the incredible site, minimizing the amount of grading, not moving the Master Listed Sandford House and saving the trees could have been done. Evidently the developer wanted a flat, empty lot. Please take a minute to read Dr. Ritter's letter; it's an eye-opener. Matt Ritter, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Biology Department, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA Delivered to Rachel Cohen on December 13th, 2016 This is a poor, misleading, inaccurate and not well researched report. The report is so full of errant data that, in my opinion, none of the conclusions are valid. There are too many errors in the report for me to spend the time delineating all of them, but I have listed the most egregious below. 1. The estimates of tree heights are significantly errant with regards to several of the trees in table 2 of the report. It is unacceptable for an arborist to not be able to accurately measure the height of trees. The Araucaria heterophylla, the Norfolk Island pine (Tree ID #2) is reported as having a height of 65 feet. It is actually 95 feet tall as measured yesterday (12/12/16) by myself and my graduate student Jason Johns, who studies the genus. That level of inaccuracy in a report like this is unacceptable. The contractor should be required to return to the site and accurately measure all the trees. a. There are between 20-30 mature individual A. heterophylla in San Luis Obispo. We measured them yesterday and the individual at 71 Palomar is the 2nd tallest in San Luis Obispo, after the 104 ft. individual on McCollum near Grand. b. The Rincon report says "The Norfolk Island pines are approximately 70 feet in height but can reach as high as 160 feet." In fact, the tallest national champion A. heterophylla in Camarillo, CA is 108 ft. tall. 2. One of the reasons for commissioning this report was to discover if there are any particularly interesting species on the site at 71 Palomar. By my count, the report fails to accurately identify ten of the trees on site. How can a report directed at identifying the value of the tree resources at 71 Palomar, not accurately identity almost 20% of the trees in the report? a. Tree #46 is identified at Eucalyptus cerba. There is no such species in the genus Eucalyptus called cerba. There is an ironbark species called E. creba, but that species is not found on the site. b. Another tree (#33) is identified at "Painted Eucalyptus" (Eucalyptus deglupta). This is a tropical tree that doesn't grow well in California north of Los Angeles. I also visited the site to confirm that this species is not found at 71 Palomar. I think the arborist may have been referring to the E. saligna tree on site (however without a map, see 4 below, it's hard to say what they were looking at. 3. There are many spelling errors, inaccurate common names and poor botanical writing throughout the report. 4. The report does not have a map associated with it, making it difficult for anyone to review the report and actually know which trees the arborist is referring to. This is especially true in light of the comment in the third paragraph of the report: "A separate arborist report was prepared by A&T Arborist (dated June 8, 2016) for the 71 Palomar Avenue Project.This report is not associated with that June 2016 report and is separate report providing analysis based on data collected by Rincon Consultants" If it is a separate report, why are all the same tree misidentifications in the both reports? 5. The notes column of the report is full of cryptic and inaccurate statements about the health of the trees. a. Tree #17 says "Suppressed". What does this mean? I looked at the tree and it isn't suppressed any way that I could see. It is unclear what the word "suppressed" means in this context. b. Tree #14 says "Dead branches in canopy, canopy competition with other canopies". But tree #14 is a palm and palms don't make branches, nor is the canopy of this tree near the canopy of other trees. c. Tree #2 says "Canopy in competition with other canopies". This also makes no sense. This is the 95 ft tall A. heterophylla mentioned above. How can the canopy of the tallest tree on site be in competition with shorter trees? Outside of the many errors in table 2, the report has a number of random, inaccurate, and misleading statements about our city ordinance, the findings of the CHC, and archaeological resource inventory report. The report states: "It is our opinion that the proposed tree removals are compliant with the tree ordinance." I disagree with this statement and I think this statement is outside the expertise of the hired arborist and goes beyond the scope of an arborist report. I could go on, but I think we have all wasted enough of our time (and other people's money) with this poorly done work. A new and accurate report needs to be done for the site. Rincon should not be involved. The ARC should postpone any review of this project until the Tree Committee has the opportunity to review a correctly prepared tree inventory and arborist's report. The current information that the city has is not accurate or complete enough for us to proceed with an informed decision on the value of the biological resources on the project site.