The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-28-2019 Item 11, Schmidt From: Sent: To: Subject: January 28, 2019 Re: 152 Broad Street tree removal Dear Tree Committee, RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2019 Richard Schmidt < S ALO. CITY CLERK Monday, January 28, 2019 11:48 AM Advisory Bodies Tree Committee TODAY'S hearing 152 Broad I object to the removal of this stunningly lovely landmark redwood tree. It is a healthy tree providing both beauty and abundant songbird habitat, and there's no good reason to remove it. The fact the owner hates trees and will use stratagems and excuses to facilitate their removal is not a good reason. You should be informed there is significant history here. This property, formerly known as 148 Broad, was a large lot arboretum designed and planted by a well-respected pioneering botanist at Cal Poly. Prior to the present ownership, this arboretum was cherished by owners for the gem that it was. But shortly after purchasing it, this owner applied to the city to remove 14 healthy trees! Yes, 14. The redwood subject to the current request was among them. The tree committee found the request, and its varying justifications, so confounding the matter was continued. Ultimately, they allowed two trees to be removed (only one of which has been removed) and said a loud NO to the other 12. Thereupon, many of the 12 began to disappear: some were cut down on weekends when city offices were closed, some mysteriously died and were cut. This phase came to a thundering climax one Sunday morning when a redwood comparable to the one before you was felled. These trees were on the list the Committee had denied permits for cutting. Only the redwood resulted in a fine — a fine so small as to make it well worth having violated the law. Recently, the applicant got PG&E to do in another of the 12, a large western red cedar, by topping it in a manner that will lead to its death. Against that background, we have a tree too prominent to just disappear coming again to the Committee. I do urge you to say no again to removing this tree. If there are in fact root problems, there are alternative constructive ways to deal with that which will not further diminish our urban forest habitat. Richard Schmidt P.S. -- OBJECTION TO INADEQUATE/IMPROPER NOTICE FOR THIS TREE COMMITTEE HEARING How much notice should be given to the public by posting a site where tree removal is coming before the Tree Committee? My question isn't about the legal minimums the city can get away with, but about being fair to and open with those who might be affected or concerned so they are able to speak up if they so wish. For TC actions, no notices are mailed to nearby property owners, as is done with planning applications, so the only way a neighbor would know of a pending action like this one is a sign posted at the property. • The posting for this action went up Friday afternoon, for a Monday hearing. That is not enough time for people to happen to notice the sign. • The actual posting is vague to the point of meaninglessness. It says "redwood tree." Really! That's all it says. There are multiple redwood trees on the two adjacent lots owned by the applicant. Which one is the target? The notice should make that clear, as in "redwood tree adjacent to house and driveway" at the very least. • The posting states the subject tree address is 152 Broad, where there can indeed be found a redwood tree barely visible from the street. But the tree in question apparently isn't at 152 Broad; it appears to be at 148 Broad, according the rough sketch provided the committee. (I don't know which is correct, and don't really care — the point is the carelessness and ambiguity of the scant notice provided.) • Further confusing matters, the notice for 152 Broad was posted squarely in front of 148 Broad. • And the alleged foundation problems aren't at 152 Broad, but at 148 Broad. Do you feel this constitutes fair and informative public notice? I certainly don't. Therefore I request two additional things of the committee: 1. That you direct staff henceforth to post signs at sites a minimum of one week prior to your scheduled hearings. 2. That given the confusion about what redwood and what property it's located on, that you direct staff to competently re - notice this action and postpone this hearing till your next meeting.