Removal of Protected Tree (revised)
Our application for removal of a protected tree was submitted as part of our application to build a house on our lot for our family. The Department of Urban Forestry found that the criteria to remove the tree were met and tentative approval was given. As part of a review by the Director of Planning, the Director has asked for more information about any potential design alternatives that would preserve both trees.
Previously, the best effort at creating a design alternative concept was put on paper, but was not actually code compliant since it did not provide for a second parking space. More information was also requested from the Urban Forestry department about guidelines for what is allowable when building a house within tree protection zones. A revision to the best alternative concept that preserves both trees is shown here. Once again, as detailed below, we find that the best alternative that preserves both trees is an unreasonable mess and it does not meet our family needs. There is no way to create a reasonable “design alternative” while preserving both trees.
According to PAMC 8.10.050 (b), removing a protected tree is permissible if “…it is determined by the urban forester… that…”
“Retention of one or more trees would result in reduction of the otherwise- permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible design alternative that would allow for preservation of the tree(s).”
The municipal code specifically calls out that the urban forester should make the determination about the buildable area and design alternatives. After careful consideration of the city code and the details of this application the urban forester found that the criteria were met and the protected tree can be removed.
An appeal to the Director of Planning should certainly con firm that proper procedures were followed according the the municipal code, but it should not seek to substitute for the opinion of the expert that is speci fically called out in the code to make the determination.
Reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot is clear. Greater than 99% of the lot is covered by tree protection zones of the two redwood trees, and the canopy covers 58% of the buildable area.
Tree Protection Zone. Any attempt to achieve a house similar to the proposed design is limited by the location of the trees and also by guidance from Urban Forestry to limit new building and soil disturbance to 25% of the tree protection zone for each tree. Section A shows how the best tree-preserving concept is situated on the land and how the tree protection zone coverage is calculated for the design concept. It illustrates the severe limitations caused by the tree.
Square Footage. Section B shows a best attempt at an internal layout. The total area is 496 square feet smaller than our proposed design. The alternative concept requires an extreme amount of hallway area to bridge the distance between the front and rear portions of the house. The alternative concept has 344 square feet of hallway area compared with 65 square feet in the proposed design resulting in an additional loss of 279 of useable living area. The di fference in useable living area between the proposed design and alternative concept is 775 square feet. This by itself shows that the concept is not similar to the proposed design and it is not a reasonable design alternative.
Awkward Layout. Building around the tree leads to a very awkward and impractical layout. The living area is broken up into front and rear sections connected by a long hallway. The living room / dining room becomes very tight.
The entry connects to the long hallway through the middle of the living room area.
The kitchen has been reduced in both directions and is now cramped. There is no longer room for stools at the island. The separate living room area, common area for the kids, and laundry room have been completely lost. The primary bedroom suite has also been severely compromised with the bedroom being reduced from 221 square feet to 154, and is now barely wide enough to fit in a king-size bed. It may be possible to build this concept, but based on the awkward, non-standard resulting layout it is not a reasonable design alternative to the proposed design.
Home Insurance. The alternative concept would need to be built largely under the tree canopy. Section C shows how this would work. The branches of the tree would be pruned from the ground up to 30 feet. This would keep the removal of functioning leaf area to just under the 25% limit. Unfortunately, building under the tree canopy will be a risk when trying to secure home insurance. It is a growing issue that neighbors may not have had to deal with since they have older homes and older policies. Section C gives links to some online articles about the issue.
We have talked to an insurance agent that said if a policy review is triggered (which is certainly would with a new house built) that overhanging branches would not be allowed. This may already be recognized by the Urban Forestry Department as an evolving issue within Palo Alto with no de finitive timeline on any potential resolutions. It may have also played a role in prompting the removal of an oak tree at 1024 Emerson St. If we are forced by the City to design an awkward house, then have to cut down the tree in order to secure insurance, then no one gains from it. It would be better to plan a house that works well with the lot and to plant appropriate replacement trees in locations that make sense.
Foundation Damage. Our consulting arborist included a section in his report giving his opinion about the previous version of the alternative concept. He advised that, while the tree would likely survive the construction process, there are good reasons to avoid building so close to the large trees. Among these reasons are that the roots of the tree could eventually damage the house and the tree may be left without adequate irrigation.
Financial Feasibility. There was a request to estimate if the project cost of the alternative concept would be significantly more expensive than the proposed plan. It is likely that the alternative concept would cost less to build than the proposed plan. This is because the alternative concept is about 500 square feet smaller than the proposed design. This should drive home the point that the alternative concept is not even close to being an equivalent or similar house as the proposed design. A lesser, awkward house may be “financially feasible”, but that does not automatically mean it is really a design alternative. Implicit in the phrase “financially feasible design alternative” is that the financial viability will be tested among reasonable alternatives that achieve similar functionality.
An alternative way to look at financial feasibility is to look at the opportunity cost of building a smaller house. At an estimated resale value of $2000/s.f., the 500 s.f. of lost area would represent much more money than the threshold of twice the reproduction value of the tree.
A proper design alternative to the proposed design must result in a house that is substantially similar and meets the needs of our family to the same degree. As shown above, due to the limitations of available building area around the trees, proposed design alternatives will fall short because
(1) the useable living area of the best alternative concept is 775 square feet less, (2) the layout would be unreasonably awkward,
(3) building under the tree canopy would make securing home insurance risky and may result in an awkward house and tree removal, and
(4) the house would be at risk of future structural damage from the roots of the nearby, large tree.
Unfortunately, no reasonable design alternative exists that would allow for preservation of the trees. We request the Director of Planning to con firm that the urban forester’s decision to allow tree removal was made in accordance with municipal code.
EXHIBIT - TREE 1 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 4656 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1108 SQ.FT. (23.8% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 158 SQ.FT. (3.4% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 27.2% EXHIBIT - TREE 2 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 5674 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1052 SQ.FT. (18.5% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 442 SQ.FT. (7.8% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 26.3% fl[f.)
ur./r n6 [yt N InrlF
oo- l rco4
JITthE
frA
e*r, m?
W-ffCt\€ *
t-LAh
A *$ k6{
oQo
OC
L
6qo frh4rLPtq 9T'
4x (coof,-
1't7 4 Lt..tttG t=Y-eA lVe+ $ r-tav)
XToo 4 6xo^&€
1-Z q sa.Ptr
I
l
(*)
f
fiatur,*4
t O.en!*tJ
CAvu)
Sr't t Ne l'7,1 ,l 6
EXCESS HALLWAY
pu+t
rr zf r4
1,4 frtS DFt
6€1 2
lo,{ Y* t+
fr€v q
lo,€* tL
r
-t
1l { j*L_{
"I
57* # P\ (Lg-D l"J +T '
ZAo fvoof
la t"f +
oftat{
"l
I
I
(
@@
@0
1 I
t
t
9’
110’
90’53’
25’ 30’
53’
110’
90’
Before pruning After pruning from bottom
EXHIBIT - TREE 1 TPZ ANALYSISTOTAL AREA OF TPZ = 4656 SQ.FT.AREA OF TPZ COVERED BY EACH TYPEOF STRUCTURE:- PROPOSED HOUSE =1108 SQ.FT. (23.8% OF TPZ)- WALKS & DRIVEWAY = 158 SQ.FT. (3.4% OF TPZ)TOTAL NEW TPZ COVERAGE = 27.2%
Links to more information about insurance risk
https://homesmsp.com/2023/11/overhanging-tree-branches-make-home-uninsurable.html https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/san-carlos-family-says-home-insurer-dropped-them-with-no- warning-over-oak-tree/
https://www.reddit.com/r/homeowners/comments/13w36tp/
home_insurance_wants_all_tree_overhang_trimmed_or/