Letter: Revision of Process for Approval of Tree Removals from Commercial Property

Sutter Parking Lot Shade Trees 1 – Courtesy Photo

The following letter was sent to the City Council from the Tree Commission approved with a 6-0 vote…

To City Council:

We are writing to request clarification and revision of the process for approval of tree removals from commercial property.

The resolution creating the Tree Commission (06-187) states that the purpose of the Davis Tree Commission is “to act in an advisory capacity on tree related matters, including review and approval of tree removal requests.”

Three large projects have recently had large numbers of trees removed without input from the Tree Commission: 205 trees in a two-phase project, currently in process (Sutter Hospital expansion & solar addition); 83 trees in a project to replace these trees with PV solar panels (Cousteau Pl.); 103 trees as site preparation for a new development (Bretton Woods).

These requests were never brought before the public or the Tree Commission, prior to being heard by the Planning Commission. They were also not brought before the Natural Resources Commission, or the 2-by-2 subcommittee between the Tree Commission and the Natural Resources Commission that is currently looking at the parking lot portion of the Tree Ordinance and how to maximize both solar arrays and tree canopy.

These three events alone total a loss to the City of 391 mature trees. These trees took one to several decades to reach maturity.

Tree Davis, working with the City of Davis, planted 379 new trees between October 2020 and April 2021. It took a lot of hard work by a lot of people to make that happen during the Pandemic.

Thus, in a year when a record number of trees were planted by the City and the community, the City of Davis has a net loss of trees for the year. It is especially disheartening in a time of Global Warming and in a city that prides itself on its tree canopy – a city that has qualified as a “Tree City USA” for decades. Add to this that the trees in these applications are mature trees, while the replacement trees will be small, and the loss to the community canopy is staggering. The Tree Commission believes strongly that we will not reduce our environmental impact by removing mature, established trees and reducing our tree canopy.

Surely there is a problem with our process when a community member is required to go before the Tree Commission to remove a single tree, but a corporation can remove any number of trees – including trees that were required for the approval of a development – without any Tree Commission or community input.

The Tree Commission respectfully requests that tree removals of twenty trees, one Landmark Tree, or a project greater than, or equal to, five acres be subject to a similar process as for removals of City Trees. This request is consistent with recommendations made by this Commission regarding the update to the Tree Ordinance. The Tree Commission also respectfully requests that a process for tree removals by property owners be developed that is aligned with the City’s goals regarding its urban forest and that the process emphasize transparency, accountability, and community engagement.

With respect,

City of Davis Tree Commission

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

3 Comments

  1. Don Shor

    The Tree Commission respectfully requests that tree removals of twenty trees, one Landmark Tree, or a project greater than, or equal to, five acres be subject to a similar process as for removals of City Trees. This request is consistent with recommendations made by this Commission regarding the update to the Tree Ordinance. The Tree Commission also respectfully requests that a process for tree removals by property owners be developed that is aligned with the City’s goals regarding its urban forest and that the process emphasize transparency, accountability, and community engagement.

    I support these requests. We’re losing more trees than we’re planting in public areas, and the drought is adding to that toll. This would be a classic advisory role for the Tree Commission and I suggest the council should give this proposal diligent consideration.

    1. Bill Marshall

      ‘Sorta fully agree… except for the role individual Commissioners take unto themselves.  If they advise, no problem.

      If it is to ‘assert power’, as some have done in the past (frequently), BIG problem.  They are appointees, not electeds.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for