This disparity was noted in the 1974 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (just over 40 years ago!) and given a high priority for action in that plan.

It's not just a tree disparity. There is homeowner landscaping disparity too, which is why we chose to live in North Palo Alto.

Now it's tree inequality...

Someone needs to compensate me for the lack of trees. I proposed a Bond or Measure B to Buy me more trees!

For this area deciduous trees are great. They grow their leaves during the hot bright season and provide shade, and then in the winter to let the light and heat through in the winter.

I can't say I like the fact that we have some really huge long-lived ... never going away ... evergreen conifers like sequoias and redwoods here in town that perpetually shade areas way past the domain of whosever yards they are in and also make solar panels untenable or problematic in the future.

I know we all love trees, but Palo Alto needs a process to deal with large tall evergreen trees that affect residents in yards past the owner of the tree.

I would propose a "Measure T" where the City take on the responsibility for these trees since they failed to manage the "tree-space" intelligently. Go through and remove 2-3% of these large trees every year and either leave it up to the property owner to replace the tree or replace it at owner's request from a list of approved trees. Of course some of these tall trees that are not bothering anyone should be retained ... like the sequoias around Channing House that do not really block solar and set off the tall building. Reason could prevail, couldn't it?

If they can take my money and use it for schools that do not affect of improve life for all Palo Altans I think they could do this and start to gradually prepare for a solar future while removing what amounts to a solar trespass for many of us by our neighbors.

Not just trees, but also other community assets, like recreational and meeting places. We have nothing near Gunn High School. Thanks to the Council for beginning this conversation.

Wish it had begun with saving the Maybell Orchard.

I agree with CressentParkAnn. I love trees, but we need a way to encourage solar to reduce green house gasses. Tall large trees to the south impinge on the neighbors, and supply nesting sites for crows whose population have increased hugely in the last years.

Boo hoo! Boo hoo! Us poor folks who live on the other side of the tracks (Oregon Expressway). Please plant huge mature trees here now so I can enjoy them. I won't be around in 15 years.

I do not know why this stream was started. I just drove across town and think the city looks beautiful and green.
There is a problem with the ash trees - some type of bug. Also - the tree people the city sent out - subcontractors - refused to listen to neighbor input. I can point out which sections are DEAD - but since they come when there are no leaves at all - they don't listen. So now the tree is filling out and there are dead sections - not a pretty picture.
It does not enhance the tree to have sections which are dead - so why doesn't the city listen - everyone wants their trees to be healthy and good looking. If the people are on the street then do the job right and listen to what people are telling you.

Ever since I was a very young kid --- I always noticed the lack of trees in the Eichler tracts, etc. Good that this will be eventually fixed.

@resident 1:

If you see dead sections call the Urban Forestry department and report a dangerous situation. If there is risk of falling limbs they will trim them out.

Next study should be who has more telephone poles and drooping lines. Gosh I wonder who will win. Although maybe the south can count the poles as trees to help the tree count.

We know there is a north/south divide and perhaps envy in Palo Alto, but I didn't know it extended to trees. Do we have to find more things to disagree over?????

Mind you, I agree about the utilities poles. These should be gone, yesterday.

I agree that it is more or a question of not replacing trees as they die and are cut down. At Robles park, in the last five years of so, one huge eucalyptus and two pines have died and been removed...sadly they have NOT been replaced by ANY trees. The two pines gave beautiful shade to the picnic tables near the sandbox.....wish we could plant more shade trees there.

@maybe
Thanks. Funny and cleverly expressed, and I got it.

Yeah, funny how that works. Why not start the undergrounding of utilities in my part of town? Hmmm...I think I know the answer. I'm sure I'll get comments from the north enders on that and they'll try to explain the logic of starting it in their part of town. Okay, okay, I got it. I know how things work in this town now! I've lived here since 1961 and it's taken a long time, but I finally 'get it'. I remember Gary Fassino's speech at the grand opening of the CVS store in Midtown. I loved Gary, one of our very best in City Hall, and a sad loss to a horrible disease. He spoke about his upbringing and early years living in the Midtown area. But he didn't stay here. He bailed out and moved to the other part of town where the really rich live. I never held that against him either. That part of town is much more beautiful than where I live, but you wanna know what? I love where I'm living and I'm starting to see beauty here.

Is there any reason why more residents of southern Palo Alto haven't themselves planted more trees?

The north does have it over the south in another respect - dead and
dying trees - many of the Magnolias, Redwoods, Camphors and others appear
to be in terrible shape, especially Crescent Park including the Magic Forest
at Rinconada. This report seems disconnected from the current reality.

"I love trees, but we need a way to encourage solar to reduce green house gasses."

Why not encourage trees? They pull CO2 right out of the air and sequester it in their biomass. Solar cells can't do that.

However, the city council, in its wisdom, changed the code to require new commercial buildings be built to the sidewalk. El Camino south or Oregon is being rapidly redeveloped with much taller buildings, but the sidewalk is too narrow tallow the new trees to fill out properly as they mature. The result is lopsided trees. With the weight of the branches no longer evenly distributed the trees start to lean away from the buildings, eventually no doubt to be deemed a hazard and cut down long before their time.

When the previous council responded to residents' comments that El Camino was beginning to feel like a canyon the council was set to change the code back to require new buildings have at least a small setback. Unfortunately one of Palo Alto's larger property owners came to the council meeting with his lawyer and said that this would amount to a taking of his property. So council caved.

I hope the current council will be bold enough to change the code back to require all new buildings along El Camino either be set back far enough to allow for the mature street tree canopies, or if not require the third floors be set back enough to allow enough room for the tree canopy to grow evenly.

The trees soften the effect of these taller buildings which are fast changing the face of Palo Alto.
Sadly the new trees planted down the center of El Camino and are beginning to grow nicely will most likely have to be removed by VTA when construction begins for their two dedicated bus lanes down the center.

The issue of leaving room for mature street tree canopies applies to California Avenue too, which is almost all one or two story buildings at present. However, council rezoned California Avenue to encourage high density redevelopment recently. It is just a matter of time before property owners tear down the older one and two story buildings one by one and replace them with taller buildings with offices above the retail.

Good information.

North South East West, we need to love our neighborhoods and enjoy each other and the beauty of our landscape.

Let's enjoy by going to each others parks!
I love palo alto specially when the sun is setting on the west side.

We are the lucky ones.

Respectfully

The previous city council and the ARB have done so much damage to this town in the way of tall, ugly buildings, unreplaced trees, lack of care for ailing trees, etc, that it will take at least thirty years to recover.

That is, unless the overdevelopment and urbanization continue. Then Palo Alto will no longer be a residential town. It already has become a bad place to raise children.

another impression,

Unfortunately, the areas you mention with the dead tress are also heavily overflown areas (by SFO and other airports), and I wonder if the the toxic dumping from airplanes is taking a toll.

The north part of town gets more attention and more care and improvements done and always has. Maybe one way to fix this is to have City Council members represent specific areas, and that way the non-North neighborhoods would have more of a voice and more influence and not always be left out.

"The north part of town gets more attention and more care and improvements done and always has."


Is there any reason why more residents of southern Palo Alto haven't themselves planted more trees?

City hired contractors just loped off several trees near me for the power lines and street lights. Maybe there are more trees where the power lines are underground. Since we are still paying for undergrounding the power lines, where is that money going?

Did this comment thread seriously devolve into a fight between the millionaires of South Palo Alto against the millionaires of North Palo Alto over who the city cares about more?

Maybe we have more pressing things to worry about in America than this...

I hope this was all tongue-in-cheek and I just missed the joke.

Oh fer goodness sake!! What ridiculous comments trying to stir up a north-south chipping contest. First of all, the trees in "old Palo Alto ' are really old -many back to the early days of the city and before and pre- WWI and WWII. Ditto Community Center and parts of Crescent Park. Christmas Tree Lane. Before WWII, Duveneck/St Francis used to be a big vegetable garden - some people still have wells. The area between Embarcadero and Newell was built in 1951 and the city planted camphor trees which are not friendly. Also planting magnolias was not very bright either. Before WWII the area south of Oregon AVENUE - virtually the entire area was gutted of the orchards. It was wall-to-wall orchards. I was told that the area had to be annexed to the city. Thousands of homes were built and some trees planted. So no one has been 'out to get' the area south of what is now the Oregon Expressway. Get one of the big for-sale editions of Palo Alto history. Drugstores even have them for sale. But for heaven's sake, quit this stirring up trouble. Read the city history. No one is picking on one area or the other. Enough already!! It's time for the PA Weekly to write some 'history lessons'.

@Seriously???: I grew up here in the 70s and there has always been a North/South PA conflict. And word is, north of Oregon Ex houses cost $100,000 more. It's usually been South PA complaining they have "nothing" while the North has the Main Library, Rinconada Pool, Childrens Library, Jr. Museum. Now, I think it's even because of the new Mitchell Park Library and the Magical Bridge Playground (which is quite amazing, BTW). But really, our city is small, so the whining about having to trek to the other side of town is ridiculous.

As someone pointed out, south PA homeowners really should work on their landscaping.

I understand my garden is a mess but it's really never my fault. I maybe lazy getting off my couch but I blamed my problem solely on my rich northern neighbors. They did this to me and cause my garden to be in a state of dis-repair. Why can my northern Palo Altans have a heart and contribute money to me directly or set up a go-fund-me.com so that I can hire a licensed landscaping artist inorder to make my garden beautiful again? Perhaps our compassionate CC could intervene on my behalf or some hero politician could pledge public $$$$ just for my cause. How I wish...how I wish.....I know there is a Santa Claus somewhere. They have been telling me this wonderful story every Christmas time. Yes it must be true!

We should just follow what PAUSD is doing and cut down trees in North Palo Alto until coverage matches that in the South. It's a simple quick solution and shows we are doing something.

The real problem Is that the city arborist doesn't care about trees!

A couple of years ago, we noticed a dying/dead limb on the sycamore in front of our house hanging out into the street. We called the arborist' s office four times over 18 months to ask that someone take a look and prune it back before it fell and damaged a parked car.

They claimed, on the fourth call, that someone had come out and found nothing wrong.

Well, about six months later someone visiting a neighbor parked under that tree, and CRAAAACK, the limb came down and put a deep, deep dent in the tailgate of the truck.

My neighbor said their visitor's insurance company is seeking reimbursement from the city, and will sue if necessary.

yes this tree issue is a fight between the old haves of north PA and the now haves of south PA.

It is exactly that.

It was only a matter of time before savy so. Palo Altans demand their trees stop being cut down; that their trees be preserved, maintained and added too.

Trees give shade and property value & smart people with money know that. Go South Palo Alto!

If south Palo Alto folks want trees why don't they plant more of them?

Google Earth clearly shows far more trees on private properties in north Palo Alto than on private properties in south Palo Alto.

Tree cover and wealth, as

Web Link

I sincerely doubt that the income level in south Palo Alto is such that they cannot afford to plant trees on their private property.

I was told by the city tree people that they would only come out every four years. When I complained about the dead portion of the trees they still did not come - until a branch broke off into the street. Then they were trapped on the street listening to everyone's complaints.

One problem is that the tree limbs have to be 14 feet above the street so that the city trucks and DHL can go under them. So now the complaint was that the trees were below 14 feet and the street sweeper would avoid going under the lower branches.

Finally we got some service when all of the leaves were gone so they could not see the dead portions. Now the trees are leafing out and the dead portions are very evident.

I was told by the city tree people that I could not get a private tree service for the street trees or they / I would be fined. Also you cannot put a tree on the section going twelve feet in from the street - those are all considered street trees.

At some point if you are looking at a potential insurance issue then some independent decisions need to be made.

My last comment on this. It was the writer who first introduced the north-south division and in one paragraph referred to
affluent north neighborhoods that looked so lush and green, comparing them, I assume, to us southender folks who let our weeds grow out of control. Leaving out any reference to wealth/affluence would have read better and not stirred up the hornet's nest. Are they more virtuous than we are? No, but they are richer and are more able to afford landscapers and regular gardeners. Us folks down here try to do our own gardening and 'yes' it shows sometimes that we don't always do a good job.
But if the north-endears are listening to the drought news, green might be bad and brown good, I don't waste a drop of water on my weeds.

There are plenty of native Californian trees that manage to handle the drought.

As to the writer drumming up the north/south cesspool, that's just the Weekly's click-bait. Same as their headline: "Measure A opposition hotting up". No basis in fact, why would a newspaper need to check facts, but gets the clicks for the ads.

@ Peter Carpenter

"If south Palo Alto folks want trees why don't they plant more of them?"

There are a number of reasons why people do not plant more trees.

If you reside in a small lot sometimes it is not practical to have a large tree. For example,if there happens to be large trees next door you enjoy the benefit without the liability. The benefits will be more sunlight, less maintenance. Additionally, there are usually less mold issues associated with properties with less trees. Sometimes, it is nice not being in a shadow all day.

Don't get me wrong, I like trees, but trees need to be planted intelligently.For example; Don't plant your Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) four feet from your house, or four feet from your neighbors house, Then, ten years later complain that the city will not let you remove it because it is now determined that it is a heritage tree (30" diameter and greater). Then when the next big wind storm arrives, it falls on your neighbors house then you are liable.

Remember, when you plant these trees, and others: Sempervirens (Redwoods) Quercus agrifolia, lobata ( Coast live oaks, Valley oak) These are very difficult to get a permit for removal. in other words once you plant these trees , the city pretty much owns your property within the drip line of these trees.

So yea, there are some reasons why people do not want trees on their property.

So, if you don't want trees then don't complain that you don't have trees.

I think the Weekly likes putting incendiary titles in their stories. It did not occur to me we had a problem until the story came out - what a bunch of unhappy people. I thought the problem was the choice of trees - some of which seem to have an infestation of bugs.

Same for Searsville story - it implies that fish will get water. Sorry - not a firm conclusion. And if silt is shoved down the creek then no fish will come up the creek. So story title is in error. The implication in the title is not borne out in the text of the story.

@ Peter Carpenter

"So, if you don't want trees then don't complain that you don't have trees."

I could not agree with you more. However there are a lot of folks out there that want trees.I was just making a valid rebuttal why some people don't.

A few years ago when an old silk tree fell on my front yard (and on city easement) the city replaced it with a whip of Chinese pistache tree. It did not survive the winter and I had to take it out and planted a Japanese maple instead (paying for it myself). However, in 6 months I got a fine from the city arborist for $1000 (=$500 for removing a tree and $500 for planting another tree without permission).
After numerous calls, the city agreed to waive the fine, but insisted that the maple is replaced with pistache.
So a few month later they came unannounced and yanked my maple out and planted another whip of pistache tree.
The City has nothing better to do than replace my perfectly fine Japanese maple with another tree. When I asked why they couldn't give any reasonable explanation. The street I live on has a variety of tree species, so go figure why the City had to spend hundreds of $ to hire a crew to take my tree and replace it with whatever was in their register.
Both trees when mature reach a similar size.

The difference in tree coverage is very obvious once you cross Oregon. I don't think anyone can argue that. My street is a 65 years old street. But if you only look at the street trees, you would think it is a 10 - 20 years street because most street trees are small, and newly planted in the last 10 years or so.

I think one of the reason, at least on my street, for these young trees, is because the old ones were trimmed excessively over the years by the city's tree contractors. Some of the trees on my street were trimmed to bare bone, tall, thin, like poles. Big branches were topped off, taking the trees years and years, if ever, to recover.

Some trees could not take these damages and died. They were cut down by city. Some were replaced by new young trees. Some were not replaced at all. My next door neighbor came out and refused to let city trim his tree every time they came by. His tree is the only beautiful and healthy tree on my street.

This year, we put up a sign to refuse the trimming too. My tree was top off last time by city, and really need some time to recover.

[Post removed.]

> "So, if you don't want trees then don't complain that you don't have trees."

Sheesh, another barb repeated over and over. Can't you just make your non-point once.

Most people have no say about the trees on their lots. They buy a house with trees already there. Yes, they can plant more if they want to, but that says nothing about city property, or business properties that give a aura to an area.

If you don't like the tree you have and want to plant a new one you are just out of luck ... try getting rid of a tree in Palo Alto. People plant trees, and then the trees grow into monsters and they have no idea, or they just leave it to the next owner who is stuck with it, and the bills for maintaining it.

[Portion removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

[Post removed.]

@Peter Carpenter, resident of Atherton
You've chewed on that bone long enough. I don't recall any of us folks in SPA complaining and I didn't know we had a problem until the writer (must have been a slow news day so they had to make some) said we do. Please, my first comment was tongue in cheek.

We moved to our home on Ross Road in 1963. It was a new neighborhood and in addition to city trees (Modesto Ash), original home owners were over exuberant in planting trees on their property, too many for the lot sizes. Over the course of years I've removed 7 trees (for various but good reasons) of the ones that were here when we moved here. In addition I've removed 4 that I planted but shouldn't have. I am properly treed and love my yards with shrubs, some flowering, a wild flower garden and just one tree on my property, a beautiful maytens. I have one city tree in my front yard lawn patch (have to mow around it) and two on the Louis Road side. I can lie on my living room sofa (I'm there now) and look out the floor to ceiling windows and see my neighbor's 3 Italian Cypress and another neighbors 2 tall birch trees, as well the string of Modesto Ash on Louis Road.
My brick patio, that I put in years ago, is surrounded by shrubs and flowers. It'is beautiful and light and bright. I have no complaints.

It's obvious to everyone that the trees look wonderful in old Palo Alto north of Oregon Expressway. That is why people come to this leafy city. But it's clear more needs to be done in south Palo Alto for street trees, etc. I too have had my tree destroyed over the years by topping, lopping, etc. More upsetting is letting people build huge humongous houses while not putting ANY of their own trees in is making this problem worse. We have small lots and some who have moved in have taken out trees (or the speculators have). City planning should right size what can be built on these small lots and require foliage if Palo Alto is to maintain what made us want to move here in the first place.