Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARC 1-30-17 post-meeting Correspondence (Ritter)c%caper � 7 OVI Matt Ritter, Ph.D.s 1 l 3u 1' 7 Professor of Biology Biology Department, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 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.