From: Winter Dellenbach
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Hernandez, Uriel; Gollinger, Peter; City Attorney; Council, City; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bpa-issues: 2241] 3880 El Centro Palo Alto - Redwood Tree Removal Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 12:29:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
I have great respect for the knowledge of City laws and expertise that Urban Forrester staff has.
And the evenhandedness with which they apply the law.
That someone may not have liked their findings/decisions concerning does not mean staff is wrong or should be subject to lambasting.
I thank City workers for their service.
Winter Dellenbach
On Jan 16, 2024, at 12:06 PM, Mircea <[email protected]> wrote:
Devaki, My name is Mircea Voskerician and I am the property owner of 3880 El Centro St. I am a resident of Barron Park since 2006.
You have to be very careful when you make statements that you do not understand all the FACTS and are unaware of Factual misrepresentations on the "redwood tree accidental cutting" subject by Uriel Hernandez.
2. Uriel and Peter Gollinger provided a redwood tree NOV report that you are referring that talks only about "accidentally cutting" because Urban Forestry department decided to leave out the FACTS that Redwood Roots are also running into the Existing house foundation
and instead of UF to ask the applicant to do exploratory redwood root trenches during several building permit plan check reviews they had done NOTHING about that, I/Applicant voluntarily did some root discovery on this redwood tree trying to help and understand where the roots are located months before the 11/14/2023 roots damaging. The only thing Uriel Hernandez did here is "blaming" me that it was " convenient to me" that the roots were "accidentally cut" when the roots were "accidentally Damaged" and not cut. You can come to see that FACT on-site. When David Docktor was in charge of Palo Alto Urban Forestry for many years, none of this nonsense and blaming happened.None.
3. Also, as far as " what you can do" please let the city and me know if you or any neighbors in Barron Park will be responsible/liable for redwood roots damages into the house foundation (while preserving trees roots) since the city of Palo Alto will not take on any liabilities. Till you, City of PA or others who agree with you will take responsibility for preserving those trees, please do not tell me you want to save the trees that impact the house foundation.
4. As far as "your enforcer," Uriel Hernandez, he is useless, and when he makes a mistake (two mistakes in this project in 2023-All documented), he will just write a citation and blames the property owner that he damaged the tree and it "is convenient to me". All witnesses that were on site when this accidental root damage happened (11/14/2023 ) that they wrote declarations confirming Uriel's unprofessional and blaming attitude towards the property owner. Check with the city on all property records on this.
Thanks
Mircea
650-996-1114
Cc: BPA News <[email protected]
>, BPA-Board <[email protected]>, "Hernandez,
Uriel" <[email protected]>
Subject: [bpa-board: 13428] Trees in Barron Park
Reply-To: bpa-bo
[email protected]
Trees in our community have been a defining feature of our rustic and serene environment. A feature that we seek, a reason to move in and continue to enjoy. But that's changing, and rather rapidly as many of us have noticed. While it's natural to take down trees when they are at their end of lives, what's causing distress to many is taking down healthy trees, especially when they are marked protected by the city.
Recent events such as poisoning a valley oak on Laguna, and more recently 'accidently cutting' deep roots of a 40 feet redwood on 3880 El Centro have been frustrating for many including myself. We are getting off of one of the hottest years in history so acts like these are not helpful. Our neighborhood charm is changing. As stated best by one of barron park old timers "This is not the neighborhood I came to" and it's not desirable. And based on feedback from a few friends who wanted to move into the neighborhood, they are now questioning whether it's worth it if the neighborhood doesn't look as unique as it once did.
In short, no one is winning.
So I reached out to our city arborist and tree ordinance enforcer, Uriel Hernandez (copied on this email) to understand what we can do. It's reassuring to know that the city arborist team has identified these and is taking specific action to prevent such acts.
But there's more we can do. For starters, Uriel suggested attending city council meetings where tree ordinance rules and fines are discussed. One of them is happening today, January 16th at 5.30 p.m. Both virtual and in-person options are available. Today's topic covers increasing fines (item #13). Uriel suggests that the more we participate, the more we can help. Please consider attending.
City council meeting: Click here for January 16th meeting details.
Uriel, thanks for what you do. Neighbors, if you see any opportunities to save our trees or witness harmful acts, please write to Uriel (copied).
Devaki
--
--
Join the BPA or renew your membership for 2024 online at:
http://bpapaloalto.org/join-the-barron-park-association/
Disclaimer: Any viewpoints in this message are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent those of the Barron Park Association or the BPA Board. ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Barron Park Association: Issues" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected] .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bpa-issues/CAMWKA4HNVL3TNPJ3jZrtNF-QvVKjqrDU9ZcV-%2BnWOuhiRG1-ag%40mail.gmail.com.
From: Leah Russin
To: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto Tree Ordinance: wrong rule, wrong problem.
Date: Tuesday, January 16, 2024 12:16:56 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
To Palo Alto City Council:
I write regarding the Palo Alto Tree Ordinance, which I believe is fatally flawed because it simultaneously puts residents at risk, fails to achieve its stated goals, and disincentives the very actions it purports to encourage.
1. The Palo Alto Tree Ordinance is the wrong rule for the wrong problem.
To start with, giant trees near homes are a risk. Even the best arborists can’t accurately predict what trees will come down or when. I had two independent certified arborists - both recommended by Canopy - come look at the Douglas Fir in my backyard. Both said it looked healthy and strong. But less than six months later, it crashed into my home, right above where I sat with my toddler, piercing the roof on both stories, and punching through the ceiling over our heads. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/04/14/after-wild- weather-season-residents-raise-alarms-about-falling-trees What gives my neighbors the right to prevent me from protecting my family from such a large and unknowable risk? For the aesthetic? For the carbon capture? I wanted to replace one tree with a different tree - a new tree that would provide shade all year but not tower 80 feet up, nor drip sticky sap all over our yard where my children play. I planned to replace it with a magnolia, which would have checked both the aesthetic and carbon capture boxes. But the city wouldn’t allow it under the new tree ordinance. And so instead of contributing to a beautiful canopy that was more in line with the risks I wanted to assume and the way my family wanted to use our yard, I have spent the past 9 months managing the repairs to my home, trying to get permit approvals through the city, and findingworkers to repair the damage. These “unusual” storms are going to become more common.
Climate change will make sure of that. Insurers are pulling out of California because they know that big storms bringing big damages are going to become the new normal. While no one wants all large trees to be removed, residents need flexibility to determine for themselves which risks they want to assume, allowing homeowners to steward their own property.
The regulation’s purported purpose is to ensure that Palo Alto has a thriving and growing canopy that stores carbon. Notably, the ordinance was unnecessary from its inception.
There is no systematic evidence, nor has any ever been presented, that there is an epidemic of removals of mature trees in our town. At best, there has been a series of anecdotes. What we do know is that our canopy is now larger than it was in the 1950s. So why do we need to impose a confusing, burdensome, and expensive process on our residents? Any ordinance adopted by this city must countenance both the norms and the exceptions: most giant trees are not at risk of removal by homeowners, but all trees will eventually fall, and some will cause catastrophic damage when they do. This ordinance, both as currently written and with the proposed staff revisions, locks in disincentives to homeowners while simultaneously requiring us to assume unquantifiable risks of trees falling. Nothing in the ordinance encourages planting new trees. It is all about penalties for removal, and requirements for maintenance.
Trees *will* eventually come down. Homeowners should have the right to remove them safely when they want to, provided they take reasonable steps to replace the loss to the canopy. The city should focus on ensuring that those reasonable steps are taken rather than preventing safe removal of unwanted trees.
2. Problems with the staff report and draft revisions:
Staff has added a “right tree right place” provision, but it’s so vague that no one but the city arborist himself really knows what it means. How could anyone buying a home know whether they could remove any tree on the lot before going through the process? The whole thing is too opaque and subjective. It interferes with private property rights in the name of benefiting the community, but the community could realize those benefits with a far less restrictive regulation.
Also, the ordinance is so unclear as to be absurd. It is so confusing that no one understands what is allowed and what isn’t. There’s a list of protected trees, but then every tree over a certain size is protected except for a few unwanted trees. And the whole section on lot percentage is positively Byzantine.
3. A better approach
:
Palo Alto can do better than this. If we truly want to ensure our neighborhoods continue to enjoy a vibrant urban forest, we should be encouraging and helping residents to contribute to the growth and maintenance of that forest. Command and control (do this, not that) regulation is outdated and disfavored. Incentives and flexibility are the way to go.
There are much more imaginative ways to encourage and increase a healthy canopy in our community than what Council is considering tonight.
Other cities actually just give away trees to any resident who completes a 20-minute online tree care class (City Plants – Get Free Trees!).
We could also develop a “Cap and Plant” program modeled on the successful cap and trade program that eliminated acid rain.
Instead of fines for disobeying an overly restrictive ordinance, we could simply offer residents a choice: (a) replace the trees at a ratio to ensure canopy continuity on their own property within a reasonable period of time, or (b) charge a fee for tree removal, and establish community fund with those fees.
That fund could be used for developing our canopy in South Palo Alto, which has fewer trees than North Palo Alto.
It could also help lower-income residents maintain or plant larger trees on their properties, since maintenance of mature trees is expensive.
We could even use that fund to help adjacent communities grow their canopies, since we will benefit from that as well.
East Palo Alto’s canopy is far less dense than ours, creating a heat sink that impacts our entire area. Belle Haven East Palo Alto have far fewer trees than neighboring communities. Groups like Canopy hope to change that | News | Palo Alto Online |
This fund could also pay for planting new trees on public lands in the city.
Allowing residents to have the trees they want will encourage us to care for them, rather than discourage anyone from allowing trees to mature, as our current ordinance does. It will also encourage our urban forest to adapt to climate change, by encouraging replacement with trees that can withstand big storms, rather than locking in the landscaping choices made by residents (or wildlife) in the last century.
Bottom line: Palo Alto’s tree ordinance, both as currently written and with the staff’s proposed revisions:is an aggressive restriction that is too confusing and ambiguous; leaves homeowners open to unwanted risk of harm; and lacks the imagination that Palo Alto ought to be demonstrating. The fact that our neighboring cities have adopted similar restrictions doesn’t make it right. We should be a leader, not a follower, particularly with respect to climate change, property rights, and safety. Trees are a defining part of our community.
It’s literally in our name. We should foster a cooperative relationship with our urban forest.
The current tree ordinance is not the answer, and the revisions proposed by the city staff are not enough to save it.
Thank you for your consideration,
Leah Russin
From: Mircea
To: Council, City
Cc: McDougall, Paul@HCD; Gerhardt, Jodie
Subject: Palo Alto Protected Tree Ordinance Agenda - Jan 16th 2024 City Council Meeting- Housing Development Needed Date: Thursday, December 28, 2023 1:42:13 PM
Attachments: 3880ElCentro_UrielHernandez_EmployeeComplaint.pdf 3880ElCentro_PA_GC_IncidentReport.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members, As you plan to review the protected tree ordinance, think of last winter and trees that should have been removed to prevent accidents, electricity interruptions, etc. This is a liability not just for the city but for the homeowners.
It is mind blowing to see that roots that run into the foundation of a property are still questioned by the Urban Forestry department that manipulates on-site results so UF can justify with the replacement equivalent of many more trees. You have a disgruntled, unprofessional, discriminating Urban Forestry department that only writes citations, and assigns make-up fees through lies while creating incomplete public records/UF reports and ignoring site/tree FACTS. When Dave Docktor was in charge, none of this happened. It was a good open communication channel with a plan. This UF department has no plan and when they make a mistake they blame the property owners and write citations if anything happens with any tree. A review of all UF department employees is overdue.
There is always a fear by the UF department of allowing a tree to be cut because " the neighborhood" will get upset. My answer to that is, why not whoever wants that tree that impacts one's property/foundation adopted by that neighbor with all its problems? There should be no tree staying in front of any development of an Addition, JADU or New Construction nor if it interferes with property foundation.
Furthermore, there are trees that have trunks above Utility Lines, Sewers, and water lines, and the city of PA does not recognize those as issues and reasons for removal.
Why NOT? They should be added as reasons for removal even as a protected tree.
Why I am supposed to maintain a sewer line at a cost of $1000/year for two cleanings because roots of that tree runs into my sewer line? I should have the option to remove that tree on top of my sewer line even a protected one and replace it with smaller ones on a different location or pay in lieu fees to the city to be planted someplace else.
City arborist like Peter Gollinger making statements " we can save the roots of a tree running into a foundation" are just WRONG since you/CC, the city, the GC nor the owner wants to take on liabilities on what will happen in the future when those roots expand beneath your house. So to stop this nonsense, adopt proper tree removal regulations and allow trees to be removed and replaced with other trees instead of having your life driven by a tree location inside your property.
You were elected to do a job act like that and take action and listen to constituents, otherwise it looks to me that you agree with the current polices and behavior of city of Palo Alto employees from Urban Forestry Department.
Mircea
Palo Alto property owner since 2007
From: Jaya Pandey
To: Council, City
Subject: Palo Alto Protected Tree Ordinance
Date: Thursday, December 28, 2023 9:43:26 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I would like to draw your attention to the City's Heritage Tree Protection Guidelines that are mostly unfavorable to the Homeowners who have Heritage Trees in their premises.
We have a Big Redwood tree close to the structural foundation and during storms and wet weather branches falling on the roof top and on the deck have created a hazardous situation and damages. Our reach out for removal/replacement of the tree leads to a discussion to get "Arborist report" and provide a reason for removal as if our voice as a Homeowner is not of much value.
City doesn't pay for damages, property tax or for any injuries that possibly could happen so unsure why the stringent intervention is required.
City also has not been able to resolve a messy hazardous situation created by my rear neighbor's oak tree leaning in my property and apparently their main concern is that utility lines are clear.
I request a consideration of revisiting the guidelines and empowering homeowners who are educated and informed of environmental impact to take the decisions that are right for their property and safety of the families.
This shouldn't be in the hands of Urban Forestry that has no stake whatsoever in terms of damages to the property and the residents.
Photos attached to show the messy situation with trees on the property for a review.
We look forward to your consideration for making the guidelines flexible and allow homeowners to remain in charge of the decisions about removal/ replacement of the unsafe trees.
Thank you!
Jaya Pandey and Jayendu Jayendu