Hello Rebecca,
We began our inquiry regarding the creek's status with the EQC in January of this year, 5 months ago! We are now closing in on a 3 month wait to hear what the new City Attorney has decided regarding the reinstatement of the San Francisquito Creek back onto the Commission's Priority list. As we have pointed out, the creek was deleted as a priority sometime in 2019. However no one knows exactly when or why the creek was removed.
You assured us on April 29th that the City attorney was still gathering information from the staff before weighing in on whether the Commission could reinstate onto its priority list the creek and its trees, while retaining its objectivity should a Heritage Tree appeal be filed. Please note that an application to remove heritage trees associated with the SFCJPA flood protection project was filed mid-April and a decision by the City Arborist could be made any day.
We certainly hope that the 3 months we've been waiting for the City Attorney's legal opinion does not translate into a high legal bill. We want you to know that there are residents who have been waiting to hear from you regarding their concern.
Steve Schmidt
Brielle Johnck
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Lucky, Rebecca L>
Date: Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: EQC Conflict of Interest
To: Steve Schmidt >
Cc: Betsy Nash >, Chris DeCardy >, Bonner, Christian R >, Chen, Joanna P >
Hi Steve,
The city attorney had a few more questions from staff before making a determination and we are getting the information she needs. We hope to have an answer as soon as possible.
Kindest Regards,
Rebecca
[cid:179e7af46475817f0141]
Rebecca L. Lucky
Sustainability Manager
City Hall - 2nd Floor
701 Laurel St.
tel 650-330-6765
menlopark.org
From:Steve Schmidt >
Sent:Thursday, April 29, 2021 4:46 PM
To:Lucky, Rebecca L >
Cc:Betsy Nash >; Chris DeCardy >; Bonner, Christian R >
Subject:EQC Conflict of Interest
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, DO NOT click links, open attachments or reply.
Hi Rebecca,
Did the City Attorney ever give you an opinion on a possible conflict between the EQC's policy of protecting trees and their role in considering appeals of the City Arborist's approvals of heritage tree removals?
Let me know the latest!
Thanks,
Steve
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Steve Schmidt >
Date: Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: EQC 2-year work plan
To: Ryann Price >
Cc: gabrielle johnck >, Josie Gaillard >, Tom Kabat >, Janelle London >, Deb Martin >, James Payne >, Nash, Betsy >, Lucky, Rebecca L >, Scott Marshall >, Naomi Goodman >, Jim Wiley >, Judy Rocchio >, Jen Mazzon >, Drew Combs >
Hi Ryann,
Thanks for your detailed response to our last email.
Has Rebecca Lucky reported back on the results of her discussion with the City Clerk? Did either of these people talk with the City Attorney? Was there any direction given to you as the EQC Chair? Let me know the latest!
It's my opinion and experience as both an EQC Commissioner and a City Councilmember that a strong policy recommendation on tree protection, especially those along the Creek, should not prevent the Commission from fairly exercising it's duty in fairly evaluating tree removal requests.
I also think that there are extraordinary circumstances associated with the tree removals and permanent changes to the riparian environment proposed by the JPA project that merit policy recommendations to the City Council and the JPA. Margaret Bruce's use of the term "holistic" should direct the principal players in this matter to insist on a balance between reducing flood risk and minimizing tree loss. Taking three major trees off the original "to be removed" list has been a step in the right direction and a hint that more can be done to protect trees along the Creek.
Steve Schmidt
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:28 AM Ryann Price > wrote:
Brielle & Steve,
It's my understanding that you're 100% correct that the EQC had historically included the San Francisquito Creek and the flood protection plan and trees in the past as a priority. I can't say that I know if it was included every year, but it certainly has been and continues to be an issue the EQC should be engaged in.
I understand your request is to formally include the creek as a priority item on the work plan rather than including it under a category, as it is currently, is that right? I want to make sure I understand your request.
Here's my understanding of what has happened since you provided your initial public comment:
* Rebecca Lucky, EQC staff liaison, has engaged the city clerk to understand the EQC's role and how the EQC could engage ahead of any appeals process and outside of a formal request by the city council to advise the city council on the project.
* I have shared the public comment and interest from a number of citizens on this topic, and the overall interest from citizens that the EQC get involved in this issue as a priority with members of the city council.
* Commissioners were invited to listen to the JPA meetings recently held over zoom on the project and the proposed tree removals to increase our knowledge and awareness.
* I've sought historical perspective from past EQC commissioners on the creek and the prior most recent engagement with EQC.
* I've heard several commissioners make statements during the meeting that they are interested in learning more, planned to attend the JPA meeting, and were interested in the item being closely monitored and having the EQC engage in this issue. An idea raised during the meeting was possibly putting an ad-hoc committee together, as had done in the past, to look more deeply at the topic and report back to the commission.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or suggestions. I'll also update you when I learn more about the EQC's options to engage in this item from the city clerk. I'm happy to connect over the phone as well if that's helpful. My number is 203-984-8504.
Thank you again for raising this topic to our attention and for your continued advocacy.
Ryann
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 9:19 PM gabrielle johnck > wrote:
Thanks Ryan for your response.
My research revealed that past EQC work plans and/or priority lists included the San Francisquito creek, the flood protection project and the trees. It’s puzzling as to when the creek was omitted in the Commission's priority list. We are asking that the San Francisquito Creek be added in some form, out of acknowledgement for its importance to the City and its residents.
As former EQC members Steve and I are aware of the Commission’s responsibility to both have a policy to protect the City’s natural areas and the impartiality required to hear an appeal. These are not mutually exclusive duties.
The creek is Menlo Park’s most revered natural feature. Its riparian forest adds to the City's character. The City's logo is a clear message that the residents care deeply about the trees, so much so that the Environmental Quality Commission is tasked with the protection of our urban canopy.
Brielle Johnck
Steve Schmidt
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 7:16 PM Ryann Price > wrote:
Hi Gabrielle,
Thank you for your email and for reaching out to us. The work plan would cover the creek tree removal project under “tracking citizen concerns regarding large scale tree removals and provide advice on future policy or plan improvements as it relates to tree removals.”
The main issue is a conflict for the EQC due to our appeal decision making authority. It would compromise matters if the EQC is making statements or recommendations prior to a potential appeal that would require EQC deliberation and decision.
You are welcome to make public comment at the meeting and provide suggestions, questions or thoughts. We have a meeting tomorrow at 6 pm.
I hope that helps clarify the work plan and that you are assured we heard your concerns.
Ryann
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:28 AM gabrielle johnck > wrote:
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your enthusiastic support of the San Francisquito Creek riparian forest. We were delighted to hear that the Commission decided on January 20 to include the creek trees in its work plan. Your concern about the impacts of the creek Flood Control Project are shared by both many Menlo Park and Palo Alto residents, in addition to Peninsula based tree advocate organization Canopy (canopy.org).
The JPA held two virtual meetings February 23 and March 2. The second focussed specifically on the creek trees, which ones to be removed and the reasons. The attendance was good and the questions submitted showed both depth of understanding and concern. Two large trees, a Blue Gum and an Oak have been removed from the removal list, which implies that the JPA is listening.
Upon reviewing the January 20, 2021 EQC minutes, it is not clear from the minutes that the work plan specifically addresses the trees affected by the JPA flood protection project. The JPA is beginning its appeal process to the City Arborist for the removal of heritage trees along the creek.
Could the Chair or Ms. Lucky please elaborate on the Commission's direction regarding the creek tree protection in the 2-year work plan. We would appreciate a clarification.
Thank you,
Brielle Johnck
Steve Schmidt
From: gabrielle johnck >
Subject: Fwd: Tree removal
Date: January 17, 2021 at 1:56:48 PM PST
To: leahelkins@gmail.com, josie_gaillard@me.com, Tom Kabat >, jlondon@stanfordalumni.org, Deb Martin >, Ryann Price >, jamespayne1987@gmail.com
Cc: "Nash, Betsy" >, rllucky@menlopark.org, Steve Schmidt >
Date: January 17, 2021
To: Environmental Quality Commission
Re: San Francisquito Creek Removal of 69 trees
From: Brielle Johnck and Steve Schmidt
Dear Commissioners,
At your meeting of January 20 the agenda shows that you will be discussing and finalizing your 2-year work plan. While we understand the importance of all three of your priorities, the one that will have the most immediate impact on residents is #2, Urban Canopy Preservation.We believe that the Commission should include the identification and the monitoring of the trees along the San Francisquito Creek banks that are under threat from the flood control project that is in the planning process now.
The most critical concern that is currently being considered is the removal of 69 trees at and in the vicinity of the Pope/Chaucer bridge. The “disposition” of these trees is being evaluated as part of the flood control project that involves the removal and replacement of the bridge.
We are attaching the arborist’s report dated April 2020that lists the trees along the banks of the creek from Middlefield Rd to University Ave at hwy 101. Our concern is for the 69 trees in the vicinity of the Pope/Chaucer St Bridge that are slated for removal, some of which are heritage trees. The 70th tree a huge California Bay #13 has recently been taken off the removal list because the engineers reduced the footprint of the bridge replacement. Also attached is a colored-coded map showing the trees to be removed.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f21f9097be3cf17ef8a9984/t/5f68d9cb9d2bb659a06f46ae/1600707146486/Prelim+Arborist+Report+SFCJPA+-+June+2020.pdf
Based on the mission statement of the EQC and the updating of the 2021-2022 work plan, we ask that the creek and its riparian forest be added as a specific concern and be monitored on a month to month basis.
“Step 4 EQC Measurement criteria: Reduction in the number of healthy trees removed* Increase in the diversity and quality of trees within the entire urban canopy * Improved coordination with the planning process * Deliver recommendation on conducting inventory and catalogue of urban tree canopy.”
The City has a council representative Drew Combson the Creek Joint Powers Board with whom the EQC and the City Staff could work to receive updates regarding the trees slated to be destroyed. In addition the new Executive Director for the Creek JPA Margaret Brucecan be reached at mbruce@sfcjpa.orgfor the most recent decisions by her staff and the JPA Board. The City has a responsibility to be aware of and participate in the education of the public as to the devastating impacts caused by the channelization of the creek and the bridge construction.
We asked that the trees to be destroyed be marked with colored tape so that the public can be informed. We made this request when the Environmental Impact Review was being conducted and before the vote to certify the EIR was taken. Unfortunately, our request fell on deaf ears. We recently asked again that the trees on the removal list be marked and we are awaiting a response.
We are more than happy to meet any of the EQC commissioners at the creek so that we can point out the trees that are on the removal list. Just email us with a date and time to meet.
Brielle Johnck and Steve Schmidt
Central Ave Menlo Park
--
