While some Palo Alto residents are upset with the city for preventing trees from being removed from their properties that have then been toppled in recent storms, others are raising concerns that the city of Palo Alto is cutting down trees that should be protected.
David Cragg, a Barron Park resident, has been fighting to save two historic redwoods in an apartment building on the corner of El Centro Street and Timlott Lane. The city put up signs on the trees on February 8 to alert the public that the 19-inch and 27-inch diameter trees were being removed because they would interfere with overhead electrical wires, and in accordance with the Right Tree, Proper Place of the city program. The program works with property owners to remove trees that pose a hazard by growing under power lines.
But Cragg criticizes the city’s tree removal process, which he said is confusing and fraught with inconsistencies and failed communications.
After contacting city officials, Cragg was told that he was entitled to a hearing with the city’s municipal forestry agency to determine if the trees could be saved. On March 13, Cragg requested the hearing in an email.
City Urban Forester Peter Gollinger wrote to Cragg that staff were postponing the moves to review the situation. Urban Forestry staff were scheduled to meet on March 14 to review the data and explore possible options, Gollinger said in a March 13 email.
“We will reach out to you later this week to discuss our findings,” he added.
The city then put up signs on March 14 that it had revoked permits to remove trees, stating the trees were “protected.” Signs read in large red letters, “Do not remove this protected tree without additional permission.” It noted that the city “has revoked permission to remove this private protected tree pending additional information or conditions are met.”
But two weeks later, on March 29, the city sent a contractor to remove the trees — with cancellation signage still in place — and without holding a hearing on their demise. Cragg said he’s never heard from any of the city’s staff.
Cragg said he was on the phone with Gollinger on March 29 when Davey Tree Service, the town’s contractor, began felling the smaller, 19-inch diameter tree.
“I told him this was totally unacceptable, that the city had not done what it promised: to delay removal pending a hearing, or at least to courtesy follow up on concerned citizens. These trees do not affect power lines and can continue to be cared for and enjoyed in their beauty. That is the city’s responsibility and its responsibility,” he said.
Gollinger agreed to halt the remainder of the move and approach Cragg with next steps, Cragg said. But again Cragg heard nothing from Gollinger. Instead, on March 30, the city removed the cancellation policy and stuck up tree felling signs with the original tree felling notice date.
The trees have survived to this day, although most of the branches have been removed from the smaller one.
Although Cragg and other neighbors, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they recognize the trees may eventually need to be removed, the failure to proceed with the review and not involve residents in the discussion has local residents’ confidence dig into the city. Cragg, who lives across the street from the trees, said the city ignored its own process and wasn’t transparent.
Mayor Lydia Kou said the city’s treatment of residents is a major issue that the city council only discussed on Monday, April 10.
“It’s something the city has been grappling with. There are so many communication breaks. People get stuck,” she said.
Community engagement means more than town meetings and presentations, she said.
“If you call the city, that has to be followed through. There’s this line of communication with the public, and we have to do better,” she said.
Poor communication not only frustrates residents; It leads to negative reactions and a back-and-forth that frustrates employees, too, she said.
While Kou doesn’t want big trees all over town to disappear, she understands that sometimes there are good reasons why they need to be removed.
Are the two trees a public nuisance?
The city has a different perspective. According to an email sent to Cragg by city officials, the new owner of the redwood tree property was “relentless” in removing the trees, which were part of a trio the previous homeowner planted 40 years ago .
As part of the city’s Right Tree, Right Place program, the two sequoias do not require removal approval and are not subject to an appeal or hearing, Gollinger said.
“The city has permission from the tree owner to remove them because they conflict with utility infrastructure. The trees are grown according to PAMC 8.04.050 b. considered a public nuisance as they affect utility services. Notification of the removal of these trees is required as a courtesy,” he said.
To make matters worse, the trees had been “crowned” a few years earlier to keep their main trunks from interfering with power lines. However, new growth was a constant problem. It’s a potential hazard that could cause electrical fires and power outages, costing the city.
“Such trees respond to being topped by spawning aggressive regrowth that often has to be pruned away by power lines. This regrowth is also poorly attached and can be prone to failure if it grows too large,” Gollinger said.
The city had to prune trees every nine to 18 months to keep the lines clean — more frequently than the usual goal of every two to three years, he added.
What is the right tree, the right place?
As part of the Right Tree, Right Place program, property owners can apply to the city to remove a protected tree that is interfering with power lines.
The city will pay for tree felling. The property owner undertakes the grinding and replanting of the tree stumps. There are also rebates for the property owner from the utilities to offset some of the sanding/planting costs,” Gollinger said.
The program’s website notes that the city will reimburse property owners up to $300 for the cost of stump grinding. Palo Alto will also reimburse up to $50 towards the cost of purchasing a replacement tree suitable for the site. A larger tree could also be planted elsewhere in the yard where it won’t interfere with the electrical wiring.
The city removes about 10 trees annually through the program, Gollinger said.
However, not all trees qualify simply because they are part of the power lines. Gollinger noted that broadleaf street trees growing near El Centro do not grow with a dominant central leader as do sequoias.
“They can be deliberately cut away from the power lines. Any lines that actually come into contact with trees are most likely communication lines. These lines are unpowered and not included in our line clearance program,” he said.
www.paloaltoonline.com
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2023/04/14/resident-citys-tree-removal-process-and-communication-need-to-improve
