by Don Shor
Copy of a letter sent Sept 19 2021.
To the members of the Davis City Council,
This letter is in support of the appeal by Alan Hirsch of the tree removal permit, issued for Sutter Health, for the removal of 63 trees in order to make room for the installation of solar panels in their parking lot.
My concerns are about the process, the city’s overall policy for tree conservation, the efficacy of the mitigation proposed, failure to account for the value and many intangible benefits of trees, and the disturbing precedent of valuing solar panels over trees.
We need a discussion of the city’s commitment to an adequate and sustained urban tree canopy, clarity about which commissions would be best for actual oversight on an advisory basis, and how the process of removing large numbers of trees should be evaluated by staff, commissions, and the council.
Process.
I do not fault the city staff for this. These are policy issues that have been brought to the fore by the sheer number of trees being removed via a single application. There should be some threshold at which a removal that affects the city’s urban forest to this extent is not simply done by administrative review.
Mitigation.
The proposed mitigation needs to be evaluated by tree professionals. The recommendation by the NRC that the mature 
trees be moved reflects this lack of expert input. It is unlikely to succeed and would be a misdirection of resources.
Better planting of their entire parking area would be a better use of funds if it were done correctly. That includes new trees to shade as much asphalt as possible, with consideration given to the reduced options due to the presence of solar panels and shading issues. More open soil areas are needed to improve infiltration of natural rainfall and allow successful root development. Climate-ready landscaping should be installed wherever trees can’t be planted.
In fact, the city’s overall tree removal mitigation strategy needs to be evaluated with a particular emphasis on parking lots, both because they are especially important for urban heat island effect and because few, if any, of the parking lots in Davis meet the city’s 50% shading requirement.
Poor valuation of the benefits of trees.
A successful shade tree reflects a significant investment of time, resources, and expertise. From the production in the growing nursery, to the selection and planting, mitigation of environmental stresses, follow-up care, and years of growth, a mature tree takes a lot of inputs. Removal of a large number of twenty-year-old trees should have been much more carefully considered and all alternatives reviewed in a detailed and transparent fashion.
This sets a terrible precedent.
Unfortunately, this has become a binary choice between solar energy and shade trees. This is not a spreadsheet issue about carbon sequestration vs mitigation. Shade trees provide habitat, nesting sites, and food sources for wildlife. They significantly cool their surroundings by transpiring water, reduce urban heat island effect, capture fine particle matter and mitigate gaseous pollutants, cool the air by evaporative cooling, and have known mental and physical health benefits.
If a homeowner were to apply for removal of a healthy city street tree to install solar panels, would the Tree Commission grant approval? Unlikely. Would the council approve that on appeal? What if some of the other parking lot owners come forward with similar requests?
With solar panels increasingly affordable, even mandated, what will be the impact on our urban tree canopy if solar panels are deemed to take precedence over shade trees?
At the very least in this regard, it would be useful for this council to make an affirmative statement of the equal benefits of shade trees and make it very clear that removing mature, healthy trees for solar energy is not considered sound policy.
I respectfully request that the permit be rescinded, that the applicant be directed to submit their mitigation plans for review by the Tree Commission, that alternatives be evaluated in detail and the findings be returned to this council before the permit is granted.
Our goal should be to see Sutter implement an effective mitigation plan that will last for decades, that they show that the trees will be selected and planted in a manner that will actually work. My hope would be that those mitigation standards could be the foundation of a new citywide pavement shading strategy as part of a successful urban forest management plan.
Thank you for your consideration of this appeal.
I am a member of the board of Tree Davis, but the views expressed here are my own.
Don Shor
Redwood Barn Nursery
I agree with Don, others, that the existing rules did not achieve the goals. The rules should be changed. Prospectively.
But not “mid-game”, not after permits have been approved/issued. That is at least, even more, unjust, unless it can be clearly shown that the approvals/permits occurred contrary to the rules, policies, procedures in effect when they were applied for.
It is that simple.
Look at building code energy standards. We know that houses built in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s do not meet current standards for construction, and certainly those likely to be promulgated in the near future. Does that mean every homeowner should be required, at their own expense to immediately upgrade their homes to the current/proposed standards, in arrears? Very similar logic to those who would place new rules upon approvals given, permits issued.
Change the standards, rules/procedures… and have them apply to new applications.
Otherwise, a new precedent will be set, with potentially serious consequences.
I don’t really understand your point here – if the rules need to be change, in other words if they don’t work, then you should figure out those rules and change them. There is nothing sacrosanct about rules. You generally have discretion to waive rules or make modifications. Most important – get the policy right.
What is there about the word ‘prospectively’, that you don’t get?
Bill – you seem to misunderstand – I comprehend what you are saying. I disagree with it.
Then, we should ‘re-try’ folk for things that weren’t crimes at the time they were committed. Same concept.
Yes, we disagree. Basically, you want ex post facto, when it suits your biases. I don’t. Basic disagreement.
I actually don’t have a bias here – I have no dog in this fight. I simply want a system that makes sense.
I assume that the appeals process exists for situations like this.
Yes, at the very least, there should be review of the whole process and guidance going forward.
The expansion of the Sutter facility is not in question as those trees have already been removed. There is no urgency to installation of the solar panels. This appeal will not impede Sutter’s ability to provide services. We do, in fact, have questions about how seriously they considered alternatives. Whether it’s mitigation or an alternate site for the panels, this is the last opportunity to make sure it gets done right.
Bill M
There’s a legitimate question as to whether this violates the current regulations.
Don S
The NRC has not made any type of recommendation on this project, contrary to your statement about moving trees.
The Parking Lot Shade 2×2 Subcommittee will make recommendations on how to balance solar panels and trees in parking lots. Note that there is no discussion about replacing trees in any other situation with solar panels–parking lots are a unique situation for many reasons that have been discussed at the Parking Lot Subcommittee meetings.
My error, you are correct. Planning Commission, not NRC. I assume the council members know that.
Don, as a non-resident of Davis, you have no say or interest in the community. Other than self-interest as someone who sells plants – including to the Nishi developers.