|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When Palo Alto adopted a law last year to shield more trees from unpermitted destruction, city leaders and environmental advocates lauded it as an overdue way to protect a treasured community asset.
Then came the heavy winter storms, which caused trees to topple, which in turn led to complaints from residents about how hard it was to remove trees — even ones threatening to fall on their homes.
Faced with these complaints, the city is now preparing to prune the law back.
The Parks and Recreation Commission, which played a major role in crafting the tree-protection ordinance, on Tuesday, Oct. 24 reviewed and generally supported a set of staff recommendations that would relax numerous restrictions on tree removals.
This includes new exceptions that would allow for the removal of a tree that is deemed “incompatible with its immediate environment” or seen as a “detriment” to an adjacent protected tree.
The provision would apply to trees that aren’t considered hazardous but that may be on their way to that status, according to a report from City Arborist Peter Gollinger. This could be a tree with an unrepairable canopy that encroaches on a home but does not meet the existing criteria for “hazard” because it is not directly damaging the home’s foundation or eaves, according to the report.
It could also be a tree that is in its end-of-life-decline but does not present a hazard, though it may be on its way to that status. Gollinger said the exception applies to trees going through “retrenchment,” a coping mechanism that some of the older trees sometimes undergo.
“It is squirreling away resources away from extremities and it’s starting to drop limbs and create a lot of deadwood,” he said Tuesday. “But it may not be an immediate hazard.”
To use the provision, the applicant has to demonstrate that other treatments and corrective practices are infeasible.
The proposed revisions would also allow a tree to be removed under what’s called the “25% rule,” when a tree takes up more than 25% of the buildable area in a residential project.
The moves aim to add some flexibility to the ordinance that the council adopted in June 2022, which roughly tripled the number of trees that are deemed “protected” and, as such, need a permit for removal.
The ordinance applies to all trees with a diameter of 15 inches or greater (the only exception is redwoods, which have a threshold of 18 inches) and adds four species — bigleaf maple, incense cedar, blue oak and California black oak — to a “protected species” list that previously was limited to the coast live oak, the valley oak and the coast redwood. The ordinance also makes exceptions for invasive species and high water users, excluding redwoods.
According to Gollinger, the new law raised the number of trees deemed protected from about 81,720 to about 224,100, more than a third of the city’s estimated total of 600,000 trees (which does not include open space areas).
Commissioners agreed to support these changes, even as they summarily rejected the idea of pursuing broader revisions such as reducing the diameter threshold for protected trees or trimming back the list of protected species. The proposed revisions will next go to the Planning and Transportation Commission and, ultimately, the City Council for approval.
For Barron Park resident Leah Russin, the changes come a bit too late. Her home was damaged in a March storm when a large Douglas fir in her backyard toppled on her roof, its limbs puncturing through windows and attic.
Russin had tried to get it removed in the months before the storm but could not get authorization from the city, even though her inquiry came before the city adopted its tree-protection ordinance. Then the ordinance kicked in and she was informed that she is no longer allowed to remove it because of the new law.
Russin told the commission Tuesday that she had consulted two arborists about the Douglas fir before it toppled. Both had assured her that it was healthy and did not pose a risk. That, she argued, points to the biggest problem with the city’s tree-protection law: the difficulty of ascertaining the risk before a tree falls on one’s home.
“This ordinance shifts the risk to private homeowners. It’s an unknown, unknowable risk, and yet it is unwanted and preventable,” Russin said. “It’s not like choosing to go drive a car without a seatbelt. I had no choice. I was not allowed to remove this tree.”
Gollinger acknowledged that the city did not respond as quickly as it should have to Russin’s inquiry but maintained that this year was exceptional when it came to the weather.
“There’s always going to be some level of risk with trees, just as there’s going to be some level of risk when you walk down the street or get in your car,” he said. “It’s part of life. There’s no way to remove risk absolutely.”
The commission agreed that while the proposed steps are reasonable, the city should proceed cautiously before considering further revisions.
Vice Chair Amanda Brown urged against making too many changes and asked city staff to focus its efforts on educating the public, providing better customer service and conducting outreach.
Chair Jeff Greenfield also favored a cautious approach and rejected some of the more ambitious changes, including removing some species from the protected list. He and Gollinger both underscored the value of having a strong urban canopy, which they noted contributes to cleaner air, cooler streets, a healthier wildlife habitat and higher property values, among other benefits.
“This past year has not been a typical year,” Greenfield said. “It may become a more typical year moving forward but I think we need to look at what we’re valuing.”
While the ordinance would allow for more tree removals, Gollinger touted on Tuesday the need to continue to grow the city’s canopy to meet its sustainability goals. He mentioned a survey that the city is currently conducting to consider the changes in the city’s urban canopy. Initial results from satellite data show that while the city gained canopy between 2010 and 2020, the number of trees has leveled off or even decreased since then, he said.
He noted that the city has a goal of increasing canopy to 40% citywide coverage by 2030.
“If we’re not going to continue to plant and grow our trees, plant more trees, we’re not going to get there,” Gollinger said.