|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Seeking to preserve the city’s urban forest, the Palo Alto City Council moved on Monday to roughly triple the number of trees that would be classified as “protected” and to impose new requirements for developers seeking to remove these trees.
By a 5-2 vote, with council members Alison Cormack and Greg Tanaka dissenting, the council supported the first revision to the city’s tree-protection ordinance in more than 20 years. The ordinance adds four tree species — bigleaf maple, incense cedar, blue oak and California blue oak — to a roster of protected trees that currently only includes the coast live oak, the valley oak and the coast redwood.
More critically, the new rules specify that most local trees would now be deemed protected when their diameter grows to 15 inches, well below the current standard of 36 inches. For six of the species on the protected list, the threshold would be 11.5 inches. The only exception is the redwood, which would be subject to the standard of 18 inches.
The move was widely praised by local environmental groups, with Canopy, Acterra, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, the Santa Clara Valley Chapter of the California Native Plants Society, Grassroots Ecology and Green Foothills all signing a letter calling the update to the tree-protection ordinance a “top priority.”
“While the city’s tree canopy is mature, abundant and vibrant, it is also at risk,” the letter stated. “Mature trees, especially native oaks, are being lost parcel-by-parcel due to development. In addition, neighborhoods face disparities in canopy cover, and climate-change impacts are already being felt.”
The city currently doesn’t have any data on how many trees it loses to development each year. This information gap caused some frustration for some council members, who were unsure how much benefit the city would be getting from the increased expenditures and enforcement that the new law would require. Public Works staff estimate that the city would need to add about two and a half positions at an annual cost of about $300,000, though fee increases would cover about 50% of that cost.
Supporters of the new ordinance argued that the lack of information is precisely the problem. The current ordinance is so weak, said resident Winter Dellenbach, that the vast majority of private trees can be cut down for no reason and without any permits or accountability.
“It’s as if we’re blindfolded, because we don’t see it,” Dellenbach said. “It doesn’t mean a significant number of trees aren’t being lost.”
But others suggested that the ordinance is too rigid when it comes to new prohibition on tree removals. Under the new rules, a property owner would still be able to remove a tree that is dead, hazardous or deemed a nuisance. And someone looking to remove a tree as part of a development project would have to demonstrate that there is no financially feasible alternative to preserve this tree.
Applicants looking to develop or demolish would also now need to hire an arborist who would submit a statement disclosing whether any protected trees exist on the property and describing these trees.
Tiffany Griego, managing director at Stanford Research Park, warned the council on Monday that these rules could lead to unintended consequences. Numerous projects at Stanford Research Park would have been thwarted, she said, if the ordinance had been in effect at the time that they were undertaken. This includes developments such as Mayfield Place, an affordable-housing complex, and the Mayfield Soccer Complex near the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road.
“Other jurisdictions give discretion to remove protected trees, the Palo Alto ordinance does not. We want to caution you from tying your own hands,” Griego said.
Architect Randy Popp urged the council to make sure that the new ordinance doesn’t conflict with state laws that empower property owners to construct accessory dwelling units. He also suggested that the requirement to hire a designated arborist for most projects is an “enormous overreach.”
“If you’re doing a project on a 10,000-square-foot lot, and there’s a tree in the back corner but you’re doing an addition or remodel in front of the house, you still need to get an arborist report for the entire property even if there is no tree within the proximity of the work,” Popp said. “It’s really going to create additional process, additional complexity, additional cost for homeowners.”
Given the feedback, Cormack and Tanaka both supported sending the ordinance for additional reviews by the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. But their colleagues agreed that it’s time to act, noting that the parks commission and the Architectural Review Board had already vetted and unanimously endorsed the new ordinance.
Even though the new law will not lead to new trees being planted, council member Greer Stone argued that protecting existing trees is just as critical. In advocating for the ordinance, he cited the adage: “A penny saved is a penny earned.”
“A tree saved is a tree planted,” Stone said. “I think it’s an important tool to preserve trees so we don’t have to continuously play catch-up in growing our tree canopy every year.”
Most of his colleagues agreed. Council member Tom DuBois called the ordinance revision one of the most important updates that the city has undertaken in his years on the council. Vice Mayor Lydia Kou, who made the motion to approve the ordinance, cited the environmental benefits of expanding and preserving the canopy throughout the city.
“I think Palo Alto is thinking forward in ensuring a cooler city by planting more trees, by preserving and maintaining the mature trees that we have here at this time,” Kou said.
Supporters of the effort argued that while the ordinance will not save every tree from removal, it will encourage developers and architects to come up with creative solutions when crafting their projects — ones that integrate the trees into their designs and take advantage of the benefits these trees offer.
“Not all trees will be saved — that has never been a realistic goal,” said former Mayor Karen Holman, a supporter of the new ordinance. “But rather to highlight the value and seek the achievable rather than follow the pattern of more mundane, even cookie-cutter, least expensive options that we see up and down El Camino and too often in our neighborhoods.”
Very happy to see news of expanded protection of heritage trees. One of the main reasons I bought a home here many years ago was that all the mature trees reminded me of where I grew up in Ohio. Before moving here I lived in Sunnyvale and definitely did not notice such a thriving canopy of trees.
Thank you to the 5-member of Couniil who voted for this updated ordinance (Cormack and Tanaka voted no). This was a wise decision for the current and future sustainability of Palo Alto. As Greer Stone said, ‘A tree saved is a tree planted.”
The representative from Stanford seems happy with cities with weaker tree protections than we now have. The cities seem to adequately bend (“discretion”) to her wishes, but now she complains that ours won’t. She is mistaken – our updated ordinance does allows for staff discrestion, but it is insistant that tree protection comes first and includes many more trees than before.
As for Stanford’s other develpment-centered complaints, a former long-time Planning Commissioner has dismissed them as mostly spurious.
The ordinance does, of course, allow tree removal – there are good reasons to remove them at times, but the point is there must be a good reason as found in the ordinance.
This ordinance update had 7 public Council and Sub-committee, Commission, Boards or Communty Meeting reviews over a 14 month period, yet Stanford never revealed it had issues until the Monday’s Council meeting. If nothing else, Stanford Research Park gets an “F” for turning in its work late.
What I understood from the meeting is that Palo Alto’s update puts it directly in line with other cities who already protect all tree that are at least 15 inches in diameter. I do see many trees cut down when someone buys a new home and perhaps wants a larger yard – some seem to disappear without reason. Thank you council! Too bad the alliance of Tanaka and Cormack couldn’t see their way to joining the rest of council on this one.
Many trees are dying due to lack of water. One in a nearby front yard which has been turned into drought friendly plants is obviously suffering from lack of water. There have been several trees that dropped branches or split due to lack of water.
I love trees, I love lawns and real plants. They keep the temperatures lower and provide shade and habitat for wild creatures and birds. However, they do need to be kept watered.
Tanaka and McCormick are enemies of the trees. Let it be known and not forgotten.