Wow, I love this edition of the New Times (Aug. 21, “Canopy hazards”) about trees, one of my favorite living things. Your writer did such a great jobāI learned a lot I didn’t know and can now use to try harder to fight for keeping our trees. I’m so glad to know there are others that feel as I do.
Why wouldn’t we want to keep the shade we have and add to it? We have a constantly warming climate, and we are not increasing our tree canopy. Trees provide an entire ecosystem for the insects, birds, squirrels, etc., that live in them, and all of this enhances our spirits and our lives. I congratulate the residents on Palomar Avenue who stood up for what they knew to be right, for the best interest of the neighborhood and community.
It seems to me that many of our ordinances and rules need to be reviewed and perhaps changed. After all, what is wrong with suggesting to a developer or property owner that they incorporate keeping mature, healthy trees that are already on their property. Why couldn’t you offer them an incentive, lower fees or even waive some fees for providing a benefit to the neighborhood. I am still totally shocked over the 54 fully mature redwoods that were destroyed on Monterey Street for new HASLO Housing. Are you telling me that HASLO and the developer would not have been open to keeping the best of the trees and incorporating them into the landscaping?
How long had each of those trees stood there? How many other creatures did they support? How much natural cooling did they provide? What type of example is our city setting when we destroy fully mature, historic trees without considering a way to preserve them? Nature is beneficial to each and every one of us, and we should use it to guide our children to loving and respecting where they live.
It also seems to me that the responsibilities of the city arborist should be more about protecting and maintaining our current canopy, plus adding to it, rather than processing and reviewing tree removal applications. According to the article, from 2020 to 2023 the city removed 597 trees, but from 2022 to 2024 it only planted 415. It doesn’t sound like the city is meeting its obligation to replace removed trees. If they process the applications for tree removal, why can’t they maintain records to report those numbers and let us know how those trees are being replaced? Why can’t we shoot for Cambria’s 40 percent canopy, utilizing some of the people listed in the article?
Once again, New Times, thank you for an excellent, timely, informative article. Now, we all need to talk to our SLO City Council about improving things and saving more beautiful, living, healthy trees. Ī
Sharon Roberts writes to New Times from San Luis Obispo. Send a commentary for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 28 – Sep 7, 2025.