Is the city tree plan illegal?

Gilroy City Council may have violated various state rules when it decided to approve $258,000 to remove more than 200 trees citywide May 1. According to San Francisco attorney, Laura Beaton, the city’s legislators may have violated laws that guarantee the public’s right to participate in legislative meetings and the state’s environmental review process when they voted to fell 235 trees– 35 in Christmas Hill Park and 200 elsewhere in the city– earlier this month.
“The council violated the Brown Act when they approved the contract amendment,” said Beaton who is representing Gilroy resident, Camille McCormack whose family has worked in community issues for generations. “The approval was for tree removal, not maintenance, which was in the agenda,”
A letter from Beaton outlining the potential violations of state statutes was sent to city officials Monday.
The original agenda item on May 1 was listed as: Budget and Contract Amendment with West Coast Arborists for Tree Maintenance. That, Beaton explained, implies keeping the trees alive, not cutting them down completely.
The City Council may have also violated CEQA, the state’s environmental review and mitigation process. “By cutting down this many trees there may be significant environmental impact. They need to evaluate the project, identify any environmental impacts and if significant, identify mitigation measures.” Mitigation measures, Beaton said, could range from treatment to replanting.
Beaton has requested the City Council rescind its approval, undertake a proper environmental review and put the tree item back on the council’s agenda and hold a public hearing so residents can participate.
“The bigger picture here is the City Council needs to conduct government in the open and everyone should know what is going on before it happens,” said Beaton. “When making environmental decisions everyone should understand the impacts before making a decision. The public also should know so they can be part of the decision making process.”
One person who is not surprised by this latest council misstep is Herman Garcia, CEO of CHEER (Coastal Habitat Education & Environmental Restoration), an advocacy group that monitors and cleans up local waterways. Garcia and his group sounded the alarm when the city, in the past, dumped landscaping waste in the Uvas Creek channel. He is concerned about the 35 trees, including coastal redwoods and a giant sequoia, identified for removal in Christmas Hill Park because of potential impacts to the creek habitat.
“I want to know if the trees are in the riparian corridor of Uvas creek, which extends 150 feet each way from the top of the creek bed,” said Garcia. “This area is a critical habitat for fish and wildlife and any activity in the channel can cause disruption to the sensitive ecosystem.”
For the Gilroy resident who aims to hold Gilroy decision-makers to account, the decision to get an attorney involved was an easy one.
“This is not about being a tree hugger,” said McCormack, a Gilroy resident who is skeptical over the city’s claim that all 235 trees identified for felling are diseased and declining and the only remedy is to remove them. She intends to have the city’s findings reviewed by another arborist.
“Trees not only have a lot of environmental and property value benefits,” she said. “Gilroy’s trees were planted purposely by the people who came before us. Gilroy is a city of trees and we need to be good stewards of that legacy.”