HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 128-07TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
11
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
FEBRUARY 12, 2007 CMR: 128:07
CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL AND RECORD OF LAND USE
ACTION FOR THE PLANNING DIRECTOR’S DENIAL OF AN
APPLICATION BY FLAVIO AND LAUREN BONOMI FOR REMOVAL
OF TWO PROTECTED REDWOOD TREES AT 526 LOWELL AVENUE.
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT PER SECTION 15270(a).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that the City
Council, uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (Director) decision to
deny the Protected Tree Removal Permit to remove two ordinance size coast redwoods at 526
Lowell Avenue based upon the findings and conditions in the Record of Land Use Action
(Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Tree Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance provide for an appeal of the Director’s
decision on protected tree removal permits within a certain timeframe with a review and
recormnendation by the Commission. In the case of Protected Tree Removal Permit
applications, three Council Member votes are required to remove the project from the consent
calendar in order to consider the appeal at a subsequent Council meeting. Otherwise, the
recommendation of the Commission stands and no hearing is held. If the Council votes to hear
the item, a hearing shall be scheduled as soon as practicable.
The Director of Planning and Community Environment denied the request to remove two Coast
Redwoods on December 4, 2006, based on noncompliance with the required findings criteria
pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations).
Within the prescribed timeframe, on December 18, 2006, the applicant appealed the Director’s
.determination and a hearing was scheduled for the Planning and Transportation Commission.
CMR: 128:07 Page 1 of 2
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 10, 2007, the Commission reviewed the project and recommended that the City
Council uphold, the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to deny the
application pursuant to PAMC Section 8.10.050. The Commission staff report and the
attachments are included as Attachment B.
Two adjacent neighbors to the applicant provided letters and spoke in support of the trees’
removal at the Commission hearing. Additionally, two members of the public submitted letters
supporting the Director’s denial. Staff also received several voice mails supporting the
Director’s denial.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
per Section 15270 (A). If the request is scheduled for a public hearing, the application would
still be exempt (Section 15304).
PREPARED BY!
DAVE DOCKTER
Planning Arborist
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
JSTEVE SLIE
Director of Planning and Community Environment
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Record of Land Use Action
B.Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, January 10, 2007
C.Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes, January 10, 2007
COURTESY COPIES:
Flavio and Lauren Bonomi, Appellant
CMR: 128:07 Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
ACTION NO. 2007-APL-00002
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 526 LOWELL AVENUE: PROTECTED TREE PERMIT DENIAL 06PLN-00323
(FLAVIO & LAUREN BONOMI, APPELLANT)
On February 5, 2007, the Council upheld the Director of
Planning and Community Environment’s December 4, 2006 decision to
deny a Protected Tree Removal Permit to remove two coast redwood
trees on the subject property, making the following findings,
determination and declarations:
SECTION i. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("~City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On November 17, 2006, Flavio and Lauren Bonomi applied
for a Protected Tree Removal Permit, 06PLN-00323, to allow the
removal of two coast redwoods in the front yard of their property
("The Project").
B. Following Planning Arborist and staff review, the
Director of Planning and Community Environment (~Director") denied
the request on December 4, 2006, based on noncompliance with the
required findings Criteria pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.10 (Tree Preservation and Management Regulations).
C. On December 18, 2006, the applicant filed an appeal of
the Director’s decision to deny the request. The Planning and
Transportation Commission ("Commission") reviewed the appeal on
January i0, 2007 and recommended [6-0] that Council uphold the
Director’s decision to deny the application pursuant to PAMC
Section 8.10.050. The Commission’s staff report and the attachments
are contained in the CMR: :07.
SECTION 2.Environmental Review.This project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), per Section 15270 (A), Projects Which Are Disapproved,
of CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3.Protected Tree Removal Permit Findings
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Section 8.10.050 (a),
Tree Preservation and Management Regulations (Tree Ordinance),
establishes findings that are required to be made in order to
warrant removal of a protected redwood tree larger than 57 inches
in circumference. This section states:
"Prohibited acts. It shall be a violation of this chapter
for anyone to remove or cause to be removed a protected tree,
except as allowed in this section : (a) In the absence of
development, protected trees shall not be removed unless determined
by the director of planning and community environment, on the basis
of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant
and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed
because i t~
a) is dead,
b) is hazardous,
c) is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree,
or
d) constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050 (2) of this
code.~
The Director’s denial was based on the following
determinations: (a) two independent arborist reports and staff
concurred that the trees are not dead, (b) staff concurred with the
two arborists’ report evaluations of the trees, branching structure
and rooting, both of which reported the trees to be healthy with
some structural defects, but that the trees are not imminently
hazardous to the safety of persons or property, (c) each tree is
not a detriment to or crowding another protected tree and, (d) the
trees are not a nuisance as defined by Section 8.04.050(2) which is
limited to impacts on publicly owned improvements. No public
improvements are adversely impacted by either tree.
SECTION 4. Tree Removal Permit Denial. The Council of the
City of Palo Alto hereby upholds the Director’s decision to deny
the tree removal application, finding that the request does not
comply with tree removal criteria of Section 8.10.050.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS: None
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Senior Asst. City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS REFERENCED:
Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report reviewing the
appeal, .dated January i0, 2007, including attachments.
3
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING & TRANSPOR TA TION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANN1NG & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
January 10, 2007
526 Lowell Avenue (06-AP-08): Appeal by Flavio & Lauren Bonomi of the
Plamfing Director’s Denial of an application to remove two coast Redwood
trees on the property pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10
(Tree Preservation and Management Regulations). Environmemal
Assessment: Exempt.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review this appeal and
recommend to City Council to uphold the Director’s decision to deny the request to remove two
Coast Redwood trees at 526 Lowell Avenue.
BACKGROUND
On November 17, 2006, the applicant, Mr, Flavio and Lauren Bonomi, 526 Lowell Avenue,
submitted an application letter and photographs (Attachment C) to remove two Coast Redwoods
located on their property, and included a Tree Survey from McClenahan Consulting, dated November
1,2006 (Attachment D). After staff review, the Director of Planning and Community Environment
denied the request on December 4, 2006 (Attachment B). On December 18, 2006, the applicant filed
an appeal of the Director’s decision (Attachment A). Two letters of support from adjacent neighbors
on Lowell were included with the appeal materials (Attachment H).
The two Coast Redwoods were the subject of a previous Individual Review (IR) application for a
new Single Family Home construction. The IR application was approved on June 16, 2004
(Attachment E). The discretionary IR site planning project around the two protected redwoods was
City of Palo Alto Page 1
based on an Analysis of Two Redwoods, dated April 12, 2003 by Barrie Coate and Associates
(Attachment F). The report indicated that significant roots and the stability of the trees would remain
valid and intact with the specified precautionary mitigations during construction. Mr. Bonomi
reported to staff that these precautionary mitigations were followed during construction.
DISCUSSION:
The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), Section 8.10.050 (a), Tree Preservation and Management
Regulations (Tree Ordinance), establishes findings that are required to be made in order to warrant
removal of a protected redwood tree larger than 57 inches in circumference (Attachment G).
This section states: "8.10.050 Prohibited acts. It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyone to
remove or c~iuse to be removed a protected tree, except as allowed in this section: (a) In the
absence of development, protected trees shall not be removed unless determined by the director
of planning and community environment, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified
arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because
it
¯is dead,
¯is hazardous,
¯is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree, or
¯constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050 (2) of this code."
The owner’s appeal application cited the two redwoods as a health detriment, diminishment of
property values (due to sap and leaf litter), and the Director’s denial as abridgement of citizen rights
without just compensation.
The code provisions establish the principal criteria for a protected tree removal application, and
provide the rationale in making a finding for approval or denial. The arborist reports and staffconcur
that the trees are not dead. Staff has evaluated the trees, branching structure and rooting and has
determined each tree does not meet the definition of "hazardous", meaning an imminent hazard or
threat to the safety of persons or property. The applicant has reported a tree has dropped branches in
the past, and staff acknowledges the possibility that some type of limb or sprout failure could
potentially occur in the future. However, this does not make the tree inherently unsafe to the extent
that it should be removed, as opposed to trimming the tree and branch endweights and then
periodically monitoring tree condition by a qualified arborist.
Staff performed a visual ground inspection of the branch, trunk and root area of the trees, and
considers any defects to be minor or correctable and the tree structure to be relatively sound. Any
potential damage from roots to structures is relatively low because the trees are a reasonable distance
from the structures, as noted in the Assessment. Additionally, the trees are favorably located in the
front and side setbacks near the property lines.
A point of clarification of the code provision citing a finding condition of"nuisance" specifically
refers only to publicly owned elements, within the meaning of the Ordinance. It states:
"PAMC 8.04.050 (a)(2) Public Nuisance. Any tree or shrub on any private property or in any
street, of a type or species apt to destroy, impair or otherwise interfere with any street
City of Palo Alto Page 2
improvements, sidewalks, curbs, approved street trees, gutters, sewers, other public
improvements, including utility mains or services."
While staff aclmowledges that sap and leaf litter are maintenance concerns for the property owner,
these problems do not constitute a "nuisance" under the code and do not justify tree removal.
CONCLUSION
The conditions of the trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to structures and/or
interference with utility services (public nuisance), do not justify removal of the trees. The location
of the trees with respect to the recent improvements does not unreasonably restrict the use of the
subject parcel. The coast redwood trees are of a size, type and in such a location and surroundings
that their removal would contradict the purposes of the Ordinance as set forth in Section 8.10.010.
The two coast redwoods are each a significant natural living landmark in the neighborhood in which
they are located. Staff has determined that the required findings cannot be made and therefore
denied the request.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA), per
Section 15270 (A), Projects Which Are Disapproved, of CEQA Guidelines, because it was a project
that had been previously denied. If the tree removal is approved, the project would be categorically
exempt pursuant to Section 15304 of the CEQA guidelines.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Appeal application and cover letter by Mr. Bonomi (12/18/06)
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
B:Director’s Decision to Deny Application (12/4/06)
C:Protected Tree Application, letter and photographs from Mr. Bonomi (11/17/06)
D:Tree Survey, McClenahan Consulting (11/1/06)
E:Individual Review Approval (6/16/06)
F:Analysis of Two Redwoods, Barrie Coate and Associates (4/12/03)
G:Section 8.10.050(a) of Municipal Code (Tree Preservation and Management)
H:Correspondence
COURTESY COPIES:
Flavio and Lauren Bonomi
Prepared by:Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist
Department/Division Head Approval:
Curtis Williams, Assistant Director
City of Palo Alto Page 3
CITY OF.PALO ALTO
Office of the City Clerk
APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT*
ATTACHMENT A
o
For appeals of. final decisions on Architeclural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public
hearing), this appeal form shall be completed and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Director’s decision.
Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted wiIhin ten days of the
Director’s decision. Complete form, the current fee and a letter stating reasons for the appeal shall be submitted to front desk staff
of the Planning Division, 5~h floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, except for 980 Fridays whenCity Hall is closed, when these
items shall be submitted to Planning staff at the Development Center, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefron[ across from City
Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton).
* Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning O~cial.
Appeal Application
Name of Appellant
Address ~
Receipt No. ~D~.’~"~.O 2. 4(’
Phone ((~)...;~Z ’~ - g~ 13
S~eet Ci~,ZIP
LOCATION OF PROPER~ SUBJECT TO APPEA[:
S~eet Address 5 Z ~ ~tL ~ ~
Name of Pmpe~ Owner (if o~er ~an appellan0 ~’~ ~
Property Owner’s Address
Street City ZIP
The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated
0(~ ?t:w - o ooo0 - Do
whereby lhe application by F~.~"
was
Date:
, 20 oQ
(file number)(original project applicant)
, is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter(in duplicate)
Signature of Appellant ......~. ,i~:~-b~_~
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved Denied __
Remarks and/or Conditions:
CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF):
Date Approved
Remarks and/or Conditions:
Denied
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED:
1.Letter stating reasons for appeal.
2.Fee (currently $I,6,1,,~..~
Received by:
Received
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo AIt01 CA 94301
B’ecernber_~17, 2006
Re: Protected Tree Removal Application #06PLN-00000-00323
Dave Dockter
Managing Arborist, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Dockter,
We have received your response to our application to remove the redwood trees located at the front of
our property. We inform you that we wish to appeal your decision.
We deeply disagree with your determination to deny our application for removal. We have lived here for
11 years and have provided maintenance over and above that which is recommended in the Tree
Technical Manual. If we thought that "periodic maintenance" would solve the problems we face, we would
not have pursued this matter in the first place.
Furthermore, this is not a "seasonal" issue. Whether it’s the growth phase or the dropping phase, we
have sap and seeds constantly raining over all of our property. No amount of periodic maintenance can
keep up with these redwood trees on such a small urban lot. We have not come to this point lightly, nor
does anyone who faces such a significant financial burden whether removed or maintained.
You determined that these trees are not "dead, hazardous or a nuisance to public property." They are a
significant nuisance to our private property and the properties of our neighbors. We are being forced to
bear continuous damage to our property that cannot be repaired or remedied without a continuous and
significant financial burden on our part. To date, the city has not offered compensation to us to repair
these ongoing damages our property.
These two trees do not provide any benefits to the property or the neighborhood. On the contrary, the
damage they continue to cause significantly reduces our property value in a real and tangible way. We
believe this is an infringement on our rights as property owners.
Furthermore, allergy testing has shown that Lauren is highly allergic to redwood trees. As a result, she
has suffered from numerous personal health complications, which makes it further unreasonable to
suggest that they provide any benefit to us..We believe being forced to maintain these trees infringes
even further on our rights as citizens.
We believe we have rights as citizens over the protection of our lives, liberty and property, we believe the
city is infringing upon these rights by imposing on us that we keep these trees without just compensation.
We respectfully request permission to have these trees removed and replaced with trees more
appropriate for the location.
Sincerely,
Flavio and Lauren Bonomi
December 4, 2006
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
Mr. Flavio Bonomi
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Protected Tree Removal Application #06PLN-00000-00323
Dear Mr. Bonomi:
Staff is in receipt of your application to remove two Sequoia sempem,irens, Coast
Redwoods, located in the front yard between your home and the sidewalk. Your materials
included a cover letter, several photographs and tree survey. The trees exceed 18-inches in
diameter lneasured at 4.5-feet above natural grade, each constituting a Protected Tree that
may not be removed unless the tree is dead, hazardous or a nuisance to public property,
per Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10.050.
The trees have been assessed on two occasions. The first analysis was prepared for an
Ja~dividuat Review application for Single Family Home that construction was approved on
June 16, 2004. The Analysis of Two Redwoods, dated April 12, 2003 by Barrie Coate and
Associates, supported incorporating the trees into the site design and plan preparation.
The new home construction project incorporating the trees as recommended is now
completed. The second assessment was recently performed by McClenahan Consulting,
who provided a Tree Stun,e), letter, dated November 1, 2006 to deternaine present
condition and recommendations for care. The latter Tree Survey indicated several
problems with both trees and recommended removal of the two redwoods.
At your request, I met with to you hear your concerns about the redwoods and your
property. At that time, I understood that your primary concern related to the tree sap
problems and debris staining on the light colored sidewalk, wall, brick driveway and
other surfaces~ It appeared that the trees had an exceptionally heavy crop of cones, and
that much of the sap origin was exuding from the cones. It can be typical for these trees to
produce prolific fruit one year and little in other years.
The tree ordinance stipulates that protected tree applications for removal meet specific
conditions and findings. Your request to remove the trees identified two areas of concern,
property damage/safety of the trees and the effects of messy debris beneath the trees.
The impacts of litter, sap, debris mess, cones, and squirrel droppings to either private or
public property would not meet the findings consistently applied allowing removal of a
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
December 4, 2006
Mr. Flavio Bonomi
Page 2
protected tree. Property damage, repainting of the house, cars and other areas cited in
your letter as effects of messy debris would be considered relatively seasonal, temporal or
correctable through periodic anaintenance or other treatment remedies similar to those
used by many other residents.
Safety of the trees was also identified in your letter. The McClenahan tree survey
concluded that 75% of the roots were affected by your recent project and created a
potential for failure, but did not consider the two trees as an imminent hazard. The Barrie
Coate Analysis (first report) prepared for the construction project anticipated prevention
of damage to the root mass of the trees, and described measures to assure protection,
including pruning to increase safety of the upper branches of both tree. You indicate that
you followed the report recommendation during construction.
While the trees are large and healthy, staff understands that they create inconvenient
conditions for you. My evaluation of the identified conditions, however, do not meet the
findings which we have consistently applied for the administering the tree ordinance. I
believe the stability of the trees is quite sound (low risk of toppling over) and the tree tops
and branches could be managed at a reasonably safe level with targeted pruning, per the
ISA1 Best Management Practices, as you have already implemented.
In conclusion, staff has determined that the request for removal of the two coast
redwood trees must be denied because the application conditions do not meet the
criteria for Protected Tree removal.
if you have other information that I am not aware of or were not disclosed in the
professional tree assessments, please contact me. With proper care and conditions, the
health of the trees would forseeably continue to provide benefits to the property and
neighborhood, and would realize a predictable life expectancy. The City of Palo Alto has
published a Tree Technical Manual, which includes best management practices for
specimen tree care and has been found to be of great value to residents. The Manual can
be provided to you or accessible at: http://www:citg.palo-alto.ca.us/trees/teclmical-
manual.html.
Procedures for appeal of this Director’s decision may be filed in writing with the City
Clerk/Plmming Division within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of this letter, as
provided for in PAMC, Chapter 18.78.
1 - ISA-International Society ofArboriculture http://www.isa-arbor.com/home.aspx
December 4, 2006
Mr. Flavio Bonomi
Page 3
Please contact me at (650) 617-3145 if you have any further questions.
For the Director,
DAVE DOCKTER
Managing Arborist, Planning Division
ISA, ASCA, APA
Attaclmaent:Bonomi application cover letter (w/o attachments), November 6, 2006
Coate A~ah,,sis of two Red~,oods, April 12, 2003
McClenahan T~-ee Survey, November 1, 2006
Steve Emslie, Director of Plmming and Community Environment
Curtis Williams, Chief Planning & Transportation Official
D wlot _m t Review
Application
City o£ Palo Alto
Department of Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 plandiv_info@city.palo-alto.ca.us
ATTACHMENT C
O Applicant Request
Architectural Review
Design Enhancement Exception
Environmental Impact Assessment
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Protected Tree Removal
Home Improvement Exception
~ Property Location
Address of Subject property:
Zone District:Assessor’s Parcel Number;
Temporary Use Permit
Individual Review
Conditional Use Permit
Variance
Site and Design
Zone Change
Subdivision
Parcel Map
Historic Category(if applicable):
0 Requested Action
Description of requested a..ction;
:4>.< .)
Applicant
Name:
Address:
City:
NOTE:
State:
APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submittedmailing, list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action t~ken.
E-mail:
Phone:
(,~Zip: c~@~ it’ ~F~:
O NOTE:APPLICANT & PROPERTY OWNER must be placed on the submittedPropertyOwnermailing list in order to be notified of Meetings, Hearings or action taken.
Name::5.~-Sqg p, .~(’,,a,:~,~,~>¢,~g E-mail:
Address:Phone:
City:State:Zip:Fax:
hereby certify thatl am the owner of record of the property described in Box #2 above and that I approve of the requested action herein. If
this application(s) is subject to 100% recovery of planning costs, I understand that charges for staff time spent processing this
application(s) will be based on the Policy and Procedures document provided to me. I understand that my initial deposit is an estimate of
these charges and not a fee, and I agree to abide by the billing p~licy stated. .
Signature of Owner: ~//~ ~ ~ ,,~_>.~ -,£~.: ~ u~:-,-- ~;’v-,:"~,.-v-_~ Date:.p,~.~ ~.. ~,~ .........
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
November 6, 2006
Dave Dockter
Managing Arborist, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Dockter,
Thank you for meeting with us to discuss the two Coast Redwood trees we have in our front yard. As you
may recall, we have expressed our concerns in the past regarding the safety of our family and our
neighbors’ families due to the number of large limbs that have fallen over the years. You advised us at
that time that the trees are now protected in Palo Alto and that our only option was to prune the trees.
Following Barry Coates’ specific recommendations, we pruned the trees and treated them with insecticide
to prevent damage from the sap dripping that we had experienced in the past. We were very careful also
to follow the appropriate procedures of the city process during the construction of our new home,
including protection of the trees.
We are deeply upset by the physical and financial damages we have experienced to our brand new
home, our cars, personal property, and personal health caused by having these trees on our property.
The financial costs to maintain these trees and repair our home have already exceeded $20,000. Upon
further telephone conversations with Barry Coates, we have now been advised that there is nothing we
can do to prevent sap dripping, that the Merit insecticide in his original recommendations will not help.
We have looked at numerous other properties, both private and public, and have not seen any as
damaging as our trees. Even you acknowledged that our trees were exceptional in the mess they created.
Subsequently, we obtained a new arborist report from Jim McClenahan, which is included in the
attachments. According to McClenahan, further chemical treatments, whether insecticide or growth
inhibitor, will not control the behavior of these trees. In his report, McClenahan agrees that these are not
good specimens and advises for their removal.
Our quality of life has been severely impacted, because we can’t even walk onto our property without
bringing sap, cones, seeds, and squirrel droppings inside the house. From April through June, we had a
continuous shower of red tannin spraying over the entire property. The attached photos show that there is
no outside surface that has not been permanently stained. The extensive and costly tile-work, stone-work,
door-sills, and window-sills are permanently ruined.
We have been back in our new home for only 8 months and we had to repaint the entire house once
already due to the staining on all the walls. We have to ask our guests to leave their shoes outside the
door. We cannot be out front without having cones (green rocks) falling on our heads and
denting/staining our cars. These cones and seeds release their sap when they are stepped upon or
squashed in the slightest way. We have put an enormous amount of time, money and effort into creating
our new home only to have it completely trashed on an hourly basis. Personal health complications due
to being highly allergic to redwoods and the stress caused by seeing the constant, ongoing damage to
everything has put us over the edge.
They are the wrong trees in the wrong places. They are a public nuisance. These particular specimens
were planted without consideration as to how large they would become or how their growth habits would
impact such a small lot. Our neighbors on both sides have requested repeatedly that we remove the
trees. We would be more than happy to plant any number of replacement trees in those locations; trees
that were more carefully selected for their growth habits and size at maturity. We think Gingko, Pistache,
or Maple trees would be much more suitable, though we welcome recommendations from you.
We believe we should have some rights as property owners over protection of our health, property and
financial investments. We believe the damage from these trees is an unreasonable burden for any
property owner to bear. We respectfully request permission to have these trees removed and replaced
with trees more appropriate for the location.
Sincerely,
Flavio and Lauren Bonomi
Attachments:
Photo documentation
Arborist report 11/1/06
Index of Photos
1)Original house in 1978; driveway is straight.
2)House in 1998; driveway is moved left with curve.
3)11/1998 original house prior to installing landscaping and irrigation system.
4)1/1999
5)2/04 original house just after garden clean up. Trees were pruned in 10/1997.
6)12/04 typical droppings a few days after gardeners cleaned.
7)Photos 7-12; 12/04 taller redwood top had split since the pruning in 10/1.997. Davey Tree service was
unable to cable two leaders together or remove one leader; Davey had to top it. Sections of tree top
shown.
13)1/05 shorter redwood #1 after pruning. Extensively thinned and treated with Merit insecticide per Barry
Coates’ instructions.
14)1/05 shorter redwood #1 after pruning. Extensively thinned and treated with Merit insecticide per Barry
Coates’ instructions.
15)1/05 taller redwood #2 after pruning. Topped and extensively thinned, longest branches cut back per
Barry Coates’ instructions to reduce end-weight.
16)1/05 taller redwood #2 after pruning. Topped and extensively thinned, longest branches cut back per
Barry Coates’ instructions to reduce end-weight.
17) 1/05 two redwoods as seen from rear of property. ~
18) 6/05 five months after pruning.
19) 9/05 eight months after pruning.
20) 10/06 22 months after pruning and 8 months after moving into new house. Redwood #2 has not
developed a new leader yet. Redwood #1 does not look like it’s been pruned.
21) 10/06 2 months after repainting entire house and garden walls.
22) 10/06 moments after morning clean-up.
23) Staining on new sidewalk 9 months after installation.
24) Staining on wall 2 months after being repainted before rainy season started.
25) Typical droppings an hour after clean-up.
26) Staining on brickwork 10 months after installation.
27) Staining on front porch tile and grout.
28) Staining on windowsill - windows and doors are from Italy and built as a single unit. Stain has
penetrated metal finish and would need to replace entire unit.
29) Meditation space on side of house.
30) Staining on tile work of meditation space.
31) Staining on tile work outside laundry room.
32) Staining on tile work of meditation space.
in light well UNDER grate to meditation space. Tile work and grout are permanently stained.
in light well UNDER grate to meditation space. Tile work and grout are permanently stained.
on vertical light well walls UNDER grate to meditation space only 2 months after repainting of
33) Staining
34) Staining
35) Staining
house.
36) Staining
37) Staining
38) Staining
39) Staining
of light well along
in light well along
in light well along
in light well along
in light well along40) Staining
driveway only 2 months after repainting of new house.
driveway - tile work and grout are permanently stained.
driveway - vertical tile work is permanently stained.
driveway - tile work and grout are permanently stained.
driveway - tile work and grout are permanently stained.
41)Staining in light well along driveway- door threshold, tile work, and grout are permanently stained.
Windows and doors are from Italy and built as a single unit. Stain has penetrated metal finish and
would need to replace entire unit.
42)Sunken patio and fountain area at rear of house.
43)Stone slabs on fountain are permanently stained.
44)Sunken patio tile work and grout are permanently stained.
45)Sunken patio tile work and grout are permanently stained.
46)2nd floor balcony at rear of house as new. Good example of what all the exterior grout looked like when
tiles were installed in 11/05 and prior to staining.
47) 2nd floor balcony at rear of house - tile work is permanently stained.
48) 2nd floor balcony at rear of house - tile work is permanently stained.
Attachment D
RVEY
Submitted To:
Mrs. Lauren Bonomi
526 Lowe~ Avenue
Palo Alto, California 9430i
Submitted By:
McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC
James M o WicClenahan
Registered Consulting Arborist
American Society of Consulting Arborists
November i, 2006
@Copyright McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC 2006
McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC
November 1, 2006
i~rs. Lauren Bonorni
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Assi.qnrnent
As requested, I inspected two Cost redwoods at site frontage to determine present
condition and provide recommendations for care.
Background
Construction of a new residence with full basement and driveway was completed in
February 2006. ]he residence encroaches to within 23 feet of Coast redwood at left
front and within 17 feet of Coast redwood at right front. Driveway consisting of brick over
compacted baserock encroaches to within 4-1/2 feet of trunk on south, west and north
sides. 16 inches below root crown grade at left front, and to within 3 feet of trunk on
north, east and south sides 30 inches below root crown grade at right front.
Both trees had previously been "topped". Heading cuts of lateral limbs to reduce
endweights was considered necessary to minimize continued exposure to branch
failures. Extensive thinning to reduce windsail has resulted in an abundance of
sprouting.
Discoloration of painted surfaces, staining of driveway, automobiles and worry over tree
stability has admittedly affected the quality of life of neighbors in close proximity.
!Vlethodolo_q.y
No root crown exploration, climbing or plant tissue analysis was performed as part of
this survey.
Owner’s photographs were reviewed to determine pre existing site conditions prior to
construction.
In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include:
Rate of growth over several seasons;
Structural decays or weaknesses;
Presence of disease or insects; and
Life expectancy.
.1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 o TEL (650) 326-8781 o FAX (650) 854-1267
Mrs. Lauren Bonomi
Page 2 November 1,2006
The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is
submitted for your information.
0 -5 Years =Poor
5 -10 Years =Poor to Fair
10 -15 Years =Fair
15 -20 Years =Fair to Good
20 + Years =Good
Tree Description/Observation
#1: Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
40.9" DSH (diameter standard height)
Height: 65’Spread: 26’
Condition:Poor/Risk Exposure
Location:Left. front
Observation:
Foliage is of uniform size and coloration. Crown density is attributed to heavy pruning.
Tree was previously topped at an approximate 65 foot height and will result in multiple
sprouting as will headed lateral limbs. This regrowth, at the side of the parent stems is
weakly attached and prone to failure. This type of pruning compromises the aesthetic
value and growth characteristics which would make this species a desirable asset.
Although the root crown has been maintained.at natural grade, the 16 inch deep grade
change for parking/driveway within 4 feet of trunk has compromised the critical root
crown area and further limits potential lateral root environments.
#2: Coast redwood
48.7" DSH
Height: 95’Spread: 20’
Condition:Poor/Risk Exposure
Location:Right front
Observation:
Foliage is of uniform size and coloration, although sporadic branch tip dieback may be
attributed to Botryosphaeria infection. Tree was previously topped at a 95 foot height
and will result in development of multiple top sprouts prone to failure. Severe
heading/thinning compromised aesthetics and growth characteristics of this specimen.
Driveway encroaches to within 3 feet of trunk on north, east and south sides, 30 inches
below root crown grade, and has compromised the critical root crown area and limits
potential lateral root environment.
Nirso, Lauren E~onorni
Page 3 November 1, 2006
Conclusion
Coast redwoods have a surface and spreading root system rarely deeper than 5 feet
and spreading 100 feet or more. This root structure will anchor the tallest and heaviest
of all life forms. Basement excavation, driveway grading and encroachment within the
critical root crown have affected more than 75 percent of the existing and possible root
environment of these trees. This compromise of root structure and potential root
development may not create an imminent hazard but significantly increases risk
exposure and potential for failure.
Growth characteristics which define individual tree species are the reason landscape
tree become desirable. "Topping" of conifers such as Coast redwoods destroys this
characteristic andcreates a loss of aesthetic value of which the trees will never recover.
The loss of aesthetic value, permanent damages to growth characteristics and exposure
to risk/failure create undesirable specimens. Retention of these trees provides no
benefit to the owner, neighboring properties or the City of Palo Alto and removal is
recommended.
Prior to inception of removal operations, a permit must be obtained from the City of Palo
Alto Planning Arborist.
We thank you for this opportunity to be of service.
Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance in these concerns,
kindly contact our office at any time.
Very truly yours,
JMMc: pm
M cC ~I~..t_HA~.:. 0 N S U LTi N G, LLC .
" Rj~gistered Consulting Arborist #249
4"- .....______._~.~-’fmerican s°c’ety °f c°nsulting Arb°r’sts
McCLENAHAN CONSULTING, LLC
ARBOR~ST D~SCLOSURE STATEIMiENT
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and
experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health
of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to
accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural
failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand.
Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground.. Arborists cannot guarantee
that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of
time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like a medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the
scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries~, property ownership, site
lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. Arborists cannot take
such issues into .account unless complete and accurate information is given to the
arbofist. The person hiring the arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the
recommended treatment or remedial measures.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near atree is to accept
some degree of risk.. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees.
Arborist:.-~
.....E~ate:Nc
~e~ "l~.XM~tern ahan
vember 1, 2006
1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028-8012 o TEL (650) 326-8781 o FAX (650) 854-1267
WWW.SPMCCLENAHAN.COM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and
Community Enviornment
June 16, 2004
Attachment E
Flavio & Lauren Bonomi
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
PtaraHag Division Subject:526 Lowell Avenue, Single Family Individual Review (04-IR-26)
On June 16, 2004, the Director of Planning and Community Enviromaaent conditionally
approved the Single Family Individual Review application for a new two-story house.
This approval was ~anted pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Codc (PAMC) Chapter
18.14. The project meets all of the Palo Alto Single Family Individual Review Guideiirzes
and complies with the R-1 Zone District regulations for development, as conditioned.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
The approval is subject to the following conditions:
1.Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and Building Departments.
2~The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with development plans
received May 14, 2004, on file with the Plmming Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, California.
3.A copy of this approval shall be printed on the first page of the blueprints submitted
for building permit.
This approval is based on plans reeeived May 14, 2004. These plans may have been
revised fiom the original submittal. Intereste~t parties may wish to review the final plans
on file at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, prior to the
end of the 10-day hearing request period.
This approval will become effective after 10 calendar days from the postmark date
of this letter, unless the Planning Department receives a written request for a
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
PaloAlto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154
526 Lowell Avenue
04-IR-26
Page 2 of 2
Directors Hearing prior to the end of the business day of the effective approval date,
as provided by Chapter 18.14.090 of the PAMC.
A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to
this approval. In the event that there is a request for a Director’s Hearing an
additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled hearing
date before the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Should you have any questions regarding this approval, please do not hesitate to call
Clare Campbell, Associate Plamaer, at (650) 617-3191.
Sincerely,
Amy French, AICP
Manager of Cunent Planning
Projecl Manager: Clare Campbell
cc: Neighbor notification list
BARRIE D. CCo~TE
and ASSOCIATES
Horli cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408/353-1052
Attachment F
AN ANALYSIS OF TWO REDWOOD TREES IN THE FRONT YARD
OF 526 LOWELL AVENUE
PALO ALTO
Prepared at the Request of:
Lauren Bonomi
526 Lowell Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
April 12, 2003
Job #04-04-049
AN ANALYSIS OF TWO REDWOO,)~ IN THE FRONT YARD OF 526 LOWELL AVENUE PALO .,.
Assignment
1 was asked to meet Mrs. Bonomi on April 12, to inspect the two redwood trees in her
front yard in reference to potential removal of those trees or if that is not permitted the
appropriate pruning procedures to enhance safety and to recommend procedures to avoid
damage to the trees during proposed construction on the west side of the house.
Summary
The two trees in queshon are extremely healthy coast redwoods both of which have been
overthinned in the past but which are dropping large quantities of trash and dripping on
the pavement and cars beneath their canopies.
The Bonomis would like to remove these trees but 1 can offer no technical, reasons for
their removal.
Summary
The .trees are healthy and any structural problems which have caused loss of significant
branches and limbs could be corrected. The enclosed report will suggest specific methods
to reduce branch drop.
It would be possible to prevent damage to the absorbing root mass of tree #1 during
construction by simply installing a fence at the perimeter of the existing landscape and to
within 4 feet of proposed new construction.
That should be very easy since the majority of the root zone of tree #1 is in an area that
need not be affected by proposed construction.
An additional subject is the London plane tree which is a city street tree directly in front
of the Bonomi property but protection of that tree should be easy.
Observations ~
Coast redwood #1 has a 39.4 inch DBH (diameter at 4.5 feet above grade) is
approximately 60 feet in height and a branch spread of approximately 25 feet..
Tree #2 is 48.5-inch trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade, is approximately 80 feet in
height, andhas a branch spread of 39 feet.
The London plane tree belonging to the city has an 18-inch trunk diameter, height of
approximately 45 feet and a branch spread entirely over the street of 28 feet.
Note that this tree is Causing displacement of the pavement by 1 inch of height in front of
the Bonomi’s home.
I am told that both of the redwood trees were pruned in the recent past but it appears that
tree # 1 was not severely pruned while tree #2 had all of the branches removed from each
limb to 12 to 15 feet from the trunk leaving lion’s-tail form, i.e., with foliage only at the
ends of the long limbs.
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSUL-rING ARBORIST APRIL 12, 2004
AN ANALYSIS OF TWO REDWOO .:ES IN THE FRONT YARD OF 526 LOWELL AVENUE PALO.
Note that the buttress which most redwoods eventually produce as they mature has
developed in tree #2 to approximately 11 feet in diameter and in the process protruding
into the Bonomi’s driveway and into the adjacent property on the south.
I note that extensive staining is being caused to the brick pathway.at the entry to the
Bonomi property by dripping from the cones from redwood tree #1_
Recommendations-
1. Since both of these trees are in such excellent health and neither have structural
problems that cannot be dealt with sufficiently to reduce the likelihood of large
branch drop. I would find it difficult to make a recommendation for removal however
if the Bonomi’s and the adjacent neighbors all want the trees removed it would be
logical to ask the planning department for removal of at least tree #2 which is
intruding into the property to the south.
o If these trees cannot be removed I suggest:
a. that tree #1 be thinned to remove 1/3 of the limbs those limb removals to
occur evenly around the trunk and throughout the height of the canopy,
bo That all limbs of more than 25 feet in length be reduced by 20% of their length
back to live branches or if there are no live branches on the limb for that limb to
be removed entirely but not removing more than a total of 30% of the foliage.
Stripping the remaining limbs of interior branches should not be allowed!
There are several specific limbs in the upper 40 feet of canopy which are very
long and poorly tapered and should be reduced in length.
The soil beneath tree #1 should be injected with Merit® systemic insecticide in
January of 2005 to reduce the feeding by cone beetles which is probably the cause
of the dripping on the pavement.
d.I could not find cones on the ground due to the thorough cleaning job by the
gardeners to verify that presence.
It would be highly beneficial to redwood tree #1 and to the Viburnum davidii
beneath it to apply a 4-inch layer of chips or a 2-inch layer of pea gravel to be
spread on the ground as a mulch.
Since it will be difficult to maintain a soil surface free of redwood litter if chips
are used beneath the redwood tree I suggesl that the pea gravel is a more practical
mulch.
Protective fence be installed at the perimeter on the south side at the planting area
beneath tree # 1 adjacent to the driveway to protect the entire area between the
driveway margin north east driveway margin and the tree and all of the roots beneath
it from construction activi~.
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 12 2004
AN ANALYSIS OF TWO REDWO(!S IN THE FRONT YARD OF526 LOWELL AVENUE PALO.
That fence should then turn toward the north east at 4 feet.west of the actual
construction margin and thereby enclose the entire area beneath the canopy of the tree
Jn all areas except that actually used for construction plus 4 feet of access room.
Based on that level of protection construction should not have any effect on tree # 1.
Since tree #2 is already raised so far above adjacent grade and in such a small space
there is no way for construction activity to cause damage to the root zone of that tree,
however the tnmk should be wrapped with a protective material to 8 feet above grade
as. specified below.
The city’s sycamore tree should have a protective trunk wrap to 8 feet above, grade.
This should take the form of four 2’ x 4’ x 8’ boards wrapped with at least two layers
of chain link fence wired together to remain against the trmak of the tree to protect it
from being damaged by construction equipment or machinery that is operating on
site.
Respectfully submitted,
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Protective Fencing info.
Sketch
BDC/sl
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 12, 2004
BA R~ E Do COATE
~d ASSOCIATES
Horti cu[ural Consul[ants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408/353- 1052
.ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING _CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The app[aiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser’s/consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should notbe construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International .Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
~)JtSULTING ARBQRIST DISC~RE ST~
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guaranteethat a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
ndl ~
0
~ 0
0 ~
~ I
0
0
O ~
0w~ 0
0 o
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT
CONSULTING ARBORIST
An Analysis of Two Redwood Trees
In lhe Front Yard of
526 Lowell Avenue
Palo Nto
Date: Apd112, 2004
Job # 04-04-049 1"=10’ ¯
Bonomi Home
No Storage
Of
Construction
Protective
Fence
Materials
Driveway,
Sidewalk
Lowell Ave.
.d" City Street Tree
ATTACHMENT G
City of Palo Alto
An Overview of Regulated Trees
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) provides for the orderly protection of regulated
trees through ordinances, policy, plan reveiw and the tree technical manual. Regulated trees
refer to all trees or groups of trees included in the following three categories: 1) Protected trees, 2)
Street trees, and 3) Designated trees.
Protected Trees (PAMC 8.10)
Trees currently protected are all coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) m-~d valley oak (Quercus lobata)
11.5 inches or greater in diameter (36 inches in circumference measured at 54 inches above
natural grade); coast redwoods (Sequoia semperv#ens) 18 inches or greater in diameter (57 inches
hn circumference measured at 54 inches above natural grade); and Heritage Trees, defined as
individual trees of any size or species desig~aated as such by the Palo Alto City Council (a list of
designated Heritage tress is kept on record with the City of Palo Alto Plapa~ng Division web
page). For development that may be witl~n the dripline of these trees, a tree preservation report-,
special protection plan notes and on site inspections are required. Applications to remove a
protected tree require Planning Division staff review, approval permit and the appealperiod
satisfied. For the purposes of environs:mental assessment, the Protected Tree category impa~ts
should be identified in the Biological and Policy mad Ordinances section of the checklist.
Street Trees (PAMC 8.04)
Street trees are all trees growing within the street right-of-way (publicly-owned), outside of
private property. Regulation of these trees extends as far as the tree drip line. For development
in the dripline of street trees, special protection fencing and Public Works verification is required.
Applications to remove a street tree require Public Works Operations staff review and approval
permit completed. For the purposes of environmental assessment, the Street Tree category
impacts should be identified in the Biological and Policy and Ordinances section of the checklist.
S:kPLANkPLADIVLArborist\Tree Removal ProcedureskRegulated Trees in Palo Alto An Overview.doc
Dave DocMer Page 1 8/21/2006
Designated Trees (PAMC 18.76.020)
The Designated Tree category includes all those on commercial or non-residential property, which are
pan of an approved landscape plan. The trees are associated with a development project that are
specifically designated by the City to be saved and protected from impacts on either public or
private property, as the subject of discretionary review of a project. A designated tree is a tree or
groupings of trees that have a particular significance because of their function as a unique natural
featnkre under the standard findings for review [Zoning Code, Palo Alto Municipal Code
18.76.020]. Major or minor changes requiring removal of these trees requires staff review and
approval from the Plarming Division. For development in the dripline of these trees, a tree
preservation report, special protection plan notes and on site inspections are required. An
application to remove a protected tree requires a Plarming Division staff review and apprgval
permit completed. For the purposes of env~rorumenta] assessment, the Designated Tree category
tmpacts should be identified in the Aesthetics and Policy and Ordinances section of the checklist.
Disturbance and Removal of Regulated Trees
The ]Palo Alto Municipal Code and Tree Disclosure Statement form (TDS) requires specific
information about existing trees to be submitted with applications for building permits, including
site plans showing trunk diameter and accurate drip line of oaks ~nd redwoods; all street trees
within 30 feet of a site, and those overhanging from a neighboring property. In addition, any
planned disturbance within a regulated tree drip line requires an arborist’s asses sment of
protection measures. Further criteria regarding Regulated tree removal, conditions for permit
approval, forms, potential mitigation options and requirements for impacts to regulated trees and
Frequently Asked Tree Questions (FAQ’s) are specified in the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual,
Section 1.05, available on line at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planning-
community/tree index.html.
S:kPLANkPLADiVkArborist\Tree Removal ProcedureskRegulated Trees in Palo Alto_An Overview.doc
Dave Dockter Page 2 8/21/2006
ORDINANCE NO. 4362
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
ADDING CHAPTER 8.10 TO TITLE 8 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TREE PRESERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.The City Council finds as follows:
(a) The City of Palo Alto is endowed and forested by native oaks and
other heritage trees, which give the City a unique visual Character and enhance property
values. The vestiges of the original abundant oak forest so well adapted to much of this
region, are increasingly threatened after more than a century of development. Redwood
trees have a special role in Palo Alto’s history due to the original "El Palo Alto" Redwood
serving as a regional landmark. ]-he City Seal includes a Redwood tree as its central
focus. Redwood trees are among the tallest trees in the City and are the State Tree of
California. Moreover, Redwood trees are planted widely in Palo Alto so that virtually
every neighborhood has been and can be impacted by the removal of large Redwoods.
Preservation and maintenance of the remaining healthy native oaks, redwoods and
other heritage trees will retain their great historic, aesthetic, and environmental value for
the benefit of all residents. Preservation of these-trees is important for the following
reasons:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
To protect and conserve the aesthetic and scenic beauty of the City;
To encourage and assure quality development;
To protect the environment of the city;
To aid in the reduction of air pollution by protecting the known capacity of
trees to produce oxygen and ingest carbon dioxide;
To help reduce potential damage from wind;
To provide shade;
To protect property values;
To act as a noise barrier; and
To assist in the absorption of rainwater into the ground, thereby
protecting against potential damages from soil erosion and flooding, as
well as reducing the cost of handling storm water by artificial means.
(b) In order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the
residents of the City, while recognizing the interests of the property owners in
developing, maintaining, and enjoying their property, it is necessary to enact regulations
for protection of specified trees on private property within the City.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, Overview of Findings Tree Preservation and Management Regulations
Chapter 8. t0 TREE PRESERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS*
Sections:
8.10.010
8.10.020
8.10.030
8.10:040
8.101050
8.10.060
8.10.070
8.10.080
8.10.090
8.10.100
8 10.110
8.10.120
8 10.130
8.10.140
Purpose.
Definitions.
Tree Technical Manual.
Disclosure of information regarding existing trees.
Prohibited acts.
No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18.
Care of protected trees.
Development conditions.
Designation of heritage trees.
Responsibility for enforcement.
Enforcement - Remedies for Violation.
Fees.
Severabilitv.
Appeals.
Editor’s Note: Prior Ordinance History: Section 2 of Ord. 4362 was previously
codified herein, and was not specifically repealed by adoption of Ord. 4568.
8.10.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of
the residents of the city through the protection of specified trees located on private property
within the city, and the establishment of standards for removal, maintenance, and planting of
trees. In establishing these procedures and standards, it is the city’s intent to encourage the
preservation of trees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Basal flare" means that portion of a tree where there is a rapid increase in
diameter at the confluence of the trunk and rootcrown.
(b)"Building area" ’ means that area of a parcel:
(1)Upon which, under applicable zoning regulations, a structure may be built without
a variance, design enhancement exception, or home improvement exception;, or
(2) Necessary for construction of primary access to structures locatedon or to be
constructed on the parcel, where there exists no feasible means of access which would avoid
protected trees. On single-family residential parcels, the portion of the parcel deemed to be the
building area under this paragraph (b)(2) shall not exceed ten feet in width.
(c) "Building footprint" means the two-dimensional configuration of an existing
building’s perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level.
(d)"Hazardous" means an imminent hazard or threat to the safety of persons or
property.
(e) Development" means any work upon any property in the city which requires a
subdivision, planned community zone, variance, use permit, building permit, demolition permit,
-1-
or other city approval or which involves excavation, landscaping or construction within the
dripline area of a protected tree.
(f)"Director" means the director ofplarming and community environment or his or
her designee.
(g) "Discretionary development approval" means planned community zone,
subdivision, use permit, variance, home improvement exception, design enhancement exception,
or architectural review board approval.
(h) "Dripline area" means the area within X distance from the perimeter of the trunk
of the tree at four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade where X equais a
distance ten timeg the diameter of the trunk as measured four and-.one-half feet (fifty-four inches)
above natural grade.
(i) "Excessive pruning means removal of more than one-fourth of the functioning
leaf and stem area of a tree in any twelve-month period, or removal of foliage so as to cause the
unbalancing of a tree.
(j)"Protected tree.means:
(1)Any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata
(Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference)
or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and
(2) Any Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in
diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) Or more when measured fourand one-half feet
(fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (Ord. 4680 § 2, 2001)
(3)
this chapter. ,
(k)"Remove" means any of the following:
(1)Complete removal, such as cutting tothe ground or extraction, of a tree.
(2)Taking any .action foresdeably leading to the .death of a tree or permanent damage
to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, girdling, poisoning,
overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating,
altering the grade, or paving within the dripline area of a tree.
(1) "Tree" means any woody plant which has a trunk four inches or more in diameter
at four and one-half feet above natural grade level.
(m) "Tree report" .means a report prepared by an .arborist certified by the International
Society of Arboricu!ture or another nationally recognized tree research, care, and prese~ation
organization.
(n) "Tree Technical Manual’" means the regulations issued by the city manager to
implement this chapter.
(Ord. 4680 § 2, 2001: Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
A heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of
8.10.030 Tree Technical Manual.
The city manager, through the departments of public works and planning and community
environment, shall issue regulations necessary for implementation of this chapter, which shall be
known as the.Tree Technical Manual. The Tree Technical Manual will be made readily available
to the public and shal! include£ but need not be limited to, standards and specifications regarding:
(a)Protection of trees during construction;.
(b)Replacement of trees allowed to be removed pursuant to this chapter;
(c)Maintenance of protected trees (including but not limited to pruning, irrigation,
and protection from disease);
-2-
(d) The format and content of tree reports required to be submitted to the city
pursuant to this chapter;
(e)The criteria for determining whether a tree is dangerous within the meaning of
this chapter.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees.
(a)Any application for discretionary development approval, or fora building or
demolition permit where no discretionary development approval is required, shall be
accompanied by a statement by the property owner or authorized agent which discloses whether
any protected trees exist on the property which is the subject of the application, and describing
each such tree, its species, size, dripline area, and location. This requirement shall be met by
including the information on plans submitted in connection with the application.
(b) In addition, the location of all other trees on the site and in .the adjacent public
right of way which are within thirty feet of the area proposed for development, and trees located
on adjacent property with canopies overhanging the project site, shall be shown on the plans,
identified by species.
(c) The director may require submittal of such other information as is necessary to
further the purposes of this chapter including but not limited to photographs.
(d) Disclosure of information pursuant to this section shall not be required when the
development for which the approval or permit is sought does not involve any change in building
footprint nor any grading or paving.
(e)Knowingly or negligently providing false or misleading information in response
to this disclosure .requirement shall constitute a violation of this chapter.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.050 Prohibited acts.
It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyone to remove or cause to be.removed a
protected tree, except as .allowed in this section:.
(a) In the absence of development, protected trees shall not be removed unless
determined by the director of planning and community environment, on the basis of a tree report
prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree
should be removed because it is dead, is hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent
protected tree, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code.
(b) In the case of development on a single-family residential lot, other than in
connection with a subdivision:
(1) Protectedtrees shall not be removed unless the trunk or basal flare of the
protected tree is touching or within the building footprint, or the director ofplaaning and
community environment has determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified
arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because
it is dead, is hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree, or constitutes a
nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code.
(2) If no building footprint exists, protected trees shall not be removed unless the
trunk of the tree is located in the building area, or the director of planning and community
environment has determined, On the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the
applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, is
hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree, or constitutes a nuisance
under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code.
-3-
(3) If removal is allowed because the tree trunk is located in the building footprint, or
the tmnk or basal flare is in the building area, or because the director of planning and community
environment has determined that the tree is so close to the building area that construction would
result in the death of the tree, the tree removed shall be. replaced in accordance with the standards
in the Tree Technical Manual.
(c) In connection with a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels,
protected tree shall be removed unless removal .is unavoidable due to restricted access to the
property or deemed necessary to repair a geolo.gic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.). The tree
removed shal! be replaced in accordance with the standards in the TreeTechnical Manual. Tree
preservation and protection measures for any lot that iscreated by a proposed subdi-~ision of land
shall comply with the regulations of this chapter.
(d) In all circumstances other than those described in paragraphs(a), (b) and (c) of
this section, protected trees shall not be removed unless one 0fthe following applies:
(1) The director of planning and community environment has determined, on the
basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant
information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a
nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2). In such cases,the dripline area of the removed tree, or an
equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved from development of any structure unless removal
would have been permitted under paragraph (2), and tree replacement in accordance with the
standards in the Tree Technical Manual shall be required.
(2) Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits
and Approvals) of this code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the
otherwise-permissible building area by more than twenty-five percent. In such a .case, the
approval shall be conditioned upon replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree
Technical Manual.
(Ord. 4826 § 4, 2004: Ord. 4680 § 3, 2001: Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.060 ’ No limitation ofauthori~ under Titles 16 and 18.
Nothing in this chapte? limits or modifies the existing authority of the cit~ under Title 18
(Zoning Ordi~)ance) to require trees and other plants not covered by this chapter to be identified,
retained, protected, and!or planted as .conditions. of.the approval of development. In the event of
conflict between provisions of this chapter and conditions of any permit or other approval
g{anted pursuant to Title 16 Or Title 18, the more protective requirements shall prevail.
(Ord. 4826 § 5,. 2004: Ord. 4568 .§ 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.070 Care of protected trees.
(a) All owners of property containing protected trees shall follow the maintenance
standards in the Tree Technical Manual.
(b) The standards .for protection ~of trees during construction contained in the Tree
Technical Manual shall be followed during any development on property containing protected
trees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10 ~080 Development conditions.
(a)Discretionary development approvals forproperty containing protected trees will
include appropriate conditions providing for the protection of such trees during construction and
for maintenance of the trees thereafter.
(b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any property owner or agent of the owner
to fail to comply with any development approval condition concerning preservation, protection,
and maintenance of any tree, including but not limited to protected trees.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) "
8.10.090 Designation of heritage trees.
(a)Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property
owner(s), the city council may designate a tree or trees as a heritage tree.
(b) A tree may be designated as a heritage tree upon a finding that it is unique and of
importance to the community due to any of the. following factors:
(1)It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species;
(2)It is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto;
(3)It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and!or historical significance.
(c)After council approval of a heritage tree designation, the city clerk shall notify the
property owner(s) in writing. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations
thereof, shall be kept by the departments of public works and planning and community
environment.
(d) Once designated, a heritage tree shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter
unless removed from the list of heritage trees by action of the city council. The city council may
remove a tree from the list upon its own motion or upon written request by the property owner.
Request for such action must originate in the same manner as nomination for heritage tree
designation.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) .
¯ 8.10.100 Responsibility for enforcement.
The following designated employee positions may enforce the provisions of this chapter
by the issuance of citations: cl~iefbuilding official, assistant building official, code .enforcement
officer, planning arborist.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.110 Enforcement - Remedies for Violation. "
In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the
following remedies shall be available to the city for violation of this Chapter:
(a)Stop Work - Temporary Moratorium.
(1)Ifa violation occurs during development, the city may issue a stop work order
suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition,
and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of
occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the director, agreed to in
writing by the property owner(s), and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of
adequate security. The mitigation plan shall include measures for protection of any remaining
trees on the property, and shall provide for replacement of each tree removed on the property or
at locations approved by the director of planning and community and by the director of public
works, if replacement is to occur on public property. The replacement ratio shall be in
accordance with the standards set forth in the Tree Technical Manual, and shall be at a greater
ratio than that required where tree removal is permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Ifa violation occurs in the absence of development, or while an application for a
building permit or discretionary development approval for the lot upon which the tree is located
is pending, the director may issue a temporary moratorium on development of the subject
property, not to exceed eighte.en months from the date the violation occurred. The purpose of the
moratorium is to provide the city an opportunity to study and-determine appropriate mitigation
measures for the tree removal, and to ensure measures are incorporated into any future
development, approvals for the property. Mitigation measures as determined by the director shall
be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subje(t property.
(b)Civil Penalties.
(1)As part. of a civil action brought by the c!ty, a court may assess against any person
who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter a civi! penalty in
an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars .per violation. .
(2) Where the violation has resulted in removal of a tree, the civil penalty s’haI1 be in
an .amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed, or the replacement
value of each such tree, whichever amount, is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the city.
Replacement value .for the purposes of this section .shall be determined utilizing the most recent
edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and .Landscape
Appraisers.
(c) Injunctive Relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, .or otherwise
compel the cessation of such violation.
(d) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city
prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the
costs of tria!, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in
prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.120 Fees.
Tree reports required to be submitted to the city for review and evaluation pursuant to
this chapter shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in the municipal fee schedule.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.130 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other
provision of this chapter which can be-given effect without the invalid provision or application,
and to this end the pro.visions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
(Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)
8.10.140 Appeals.
Any person seeking the director’s approval to remove a protected tree pursuant.to the
ordinance .codified in this ¯chapter.who is aggrieved by a decision of the director may appeal such
decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals).
(Ord. 4826 § 6;2004: Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) (note." Old reference prior to 7/04_is 16.48.090
of Chapter 16.48)
-6-
Attachment H
520 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
December 18, 2006
Re: Protected Tree Removal Application #06PLN-00000-00323
Dave Dockter
Managing Arborist, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Dockter,
I have been a next-door neighbor to the Bonomi family for many years and can attest to the fact that they
have kept the redwoods at the front of their house maintained by licensed professional tree services. In
spite of that, the trees they own were poorly pruned in the past. In particular, the redwood that
encroaches on my property was severely pruned by the previous owners who built my house. As a
result, a number of large limbs have fallen over the years that have broken my fence and barely missed
my car. The base of the tree has grown so much in recent years that it has already broken the stone-wall
built around it. I am tired of dealing with the constant damage to my property.
I have young grandchildren and the Bonomi’s have young children. I am very concerned that the trees
will injure someone either by losing a limb or by falling. I am worried about the safety of my family and my
home. I have complained to the Bonomi’s many times regarding the safety of the trees and have
repeatedly asked for them to be removed. Finally, they are pursuing it with you.
While I am thrilled that the Bonomi’s have rebuilt their house and improved the values of their property
and mine, those redwoods are a liability. They are completely out of scale for the property. Whoever
planted the trees was irresponsible and didn’t think about how large they would become when planted in
such a densely populated area. I would not miss them in the least. In fact, I would like to have the trees
removed as soon as possible and replaced with something more in scale with our homes.
Please reconsider their application for removal and understand that the Bonomi’s have my full support.
Sincerely,
Bette Miller Dean
536 Lowell Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
December 17, 2006
Re: Protected Tree Removal Application #06PLN-00000-00323
Dave Dockter
Managing Arborist, Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Mr. Dockter,
I have been a next-door neighbor to the Bonomi family for many years and can attest to the fact that they
have kept the redwoods at the front of their house well maintained. In spite of that, I think these trees are
just too big for the property and the neighborhood. In at least one instance, I have cleaned up limbs that
have fallen during storms while the Bonomi’s were away. They have been lucky that no one was injured.
I am thrilled that the Bonomi’s have rebuilt their house and improved the value of their property and mine.
I don’t see that those redwoods add any value at all especially since they have been topped. The
droppings have stained my cars and property as well, and I have asked the Bonomi’s whether the trees
could be removed. I would not miss them in the least. In fact, I would like to have the trees removed as
soon as possible and replaced with something more in scale with the lot..
Sincerely,
Sid Mak
Jody Davidson & Steve Broadbent
575 Washington Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301-4046
jodyldavidson@aol.com
(650) 331-1642
January 2, 2007
Planning and Transportation Commission
Attn: Dave Dockter
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 1 st Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
526 Lowell Environmental Assessment
Protected Redwood Trees
Dear Dave:
This letter is to express support of the Director’s decision to deny a tree removal permit
for two protected Redwood trees at 526 Lowell Ave. We request that the Planning and
Transportation Commission deny the appeal and continue to protect these two
magnificent trees.
We support protection of all Redwood trees within Palo Alto unless they are diseased and
pose a danger to structures or people.
As the symbol of our fine city, and Stanford University, we feel compelled to protect as
many of these majestic "heritage" trees as possible.
Sincerely,
Jody Davidson and Stephen Broadbent
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
January 10, 2007
EXCERPT
526 Lowell Avenue*: Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation
regarding an appeal of a Director’s decision to deny a tree removal permit for two protected
Redwood trees at 526 Lowell Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exemption per
Section 15304 of CEQA Guidelines.
Mr. Williams: You have most of the information before you as far as our denial letter and the
background. I think Dave just wants to make a couple of comments in response particularly to
some of the questions that you raised in emails today. This is Dave Dockter our Planning
Arborist if you don’t remember him from two months ago when he spoke to you about
landscaping.
Mr. Dave Dockter, Planning Arborist: Good evening Chair Holman and Commissioners. As
was mentioned the appeal of the Director’s Decision to deny two redwood tree removals was
rendered with considerable thought to it. The appellant wishes to make a presentation to you
also to convey some of their thoughts and concerns.
I wanted to respond to a couple of questions that were presented to Staff from Commissioners.
Specifically one question was how old are the trees? I learned they are about 50 years old. They
were planted in the landscape and they weren’t there before the homes were built. So they were
planted trees.
Another question was there were two opinions by two different arborists that are in the Staff
Report. One arborist rendered an opinion before the construction of the Bonomi’s home and
after construction was finished, more recently, another arborist assessment was made and there
was a different opinion of the trees’ condition. The question was what is up with the discrepancy
and how should we look at that? Between the two arborists reports there was a change from a
good condition to a poor condition. The construction project was performed by implementing all
of the precautionary measures in the Barrie Coate report, which is the first report, which had the
opinion the trees were in good condition. In doing so all of those measures were followed during
construction as reported to Staff by Mr. Bonomi. In which case with all of those precautions
followed the trees should have still remained in good condition. So Staff really doesn’t have an
explanation of why the trees were downgraded so much to poor condition in the later or most
recent McClenahan report. The poor condition in the McClenahan report conveyed a zero to
five-year life expectancy of the two redwoods. I think that was one of the things that Staff was
highly questioning whether the mortality of those trees would be zero to five years was probably
not something that was really reflective of what is ont there on the stump right now. I think they
have a much better prognosis than that.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The other aspects that were a part of the downgrading to poor in the later arborist’s report was
that of aesthetics which the Municipal Code and Staff don’t play a large factor in allowing some
of the protected trees to be removed. Aesthetics plays a role in good looks and maybe some
health but the structure and hazard rating is directly tied to the aesthetics and therefore we could
not make the findings to grand the original request. It is part of the denial.
There were a couple of other questions from Chair Holman asking about some of the
construction project’s driveway that was put in and did that compromise the root structure of the
two redwood trees. There were pavers put over the roots of the redwood trees. Staff doesn’t feel
that there was a dangerous or significant amount of roots that were removed, cut, damaged, or
impaired in this. The existing situation is pretty much on grade from what it was before. There
always was a driveway along the side of the right hand tree for as long as Staff can determine
that the house has been there and the tree also. That is the overview that I would like provide. I
am available for questions and the appellant also wishes to present to the Commission.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller has a question for you.
Commissioner Keller: Yes, you mentioned that the code report said that the tree was, I think you
said, good health. I note that the recommendation of the Coate report said since both of these
trees are in such excellent health and neither have structural problems that can be dealt with
sufficiently to reduce the likelihood of large branch drop I would find it difficult to make a
recommendation for removal. So would you agree that the Coate report basically said that these
trees were in excellent health and that it would be reasonable to expect that that would continue
for many years to come?
Mr. Dockter: That would be a qualified yes. I think even the Coate report acknowledged that
controlled pruning and targeted pruning was necessary to lighten end weights and continue to
keep the tree reasonably safe.
Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Burt: I just wanted to make sure I understand clearly the conditions that are the
basis for the decisions that we would make. As I read the Staff Report predominantly on the
lower part of page two, earlier in the page there were four bullets, it is dead, it is hazardous,
could be to the detriment or crowding of an adjacent protected tree, or that it constitutes a
nuisance. The nuisance is defined in a way that is maybe not in a broad sense it is a very explicit
definition of nuisance. Is that correct that the nuisance really has to do with damage basically to
public property?
Ms. Tronquet: Yes, that is the way it is defined for purposes of this ordinance so that is the
definition of nuisance that we are using.
Commissioner Burt: Okay. So no other subjective decisions besides what is in the Tree
Ordinance can be used by the Commission tonight?
Page 2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
1
2 Ms. Tronquet: Right.
3
4 Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
5
Chair Holman: Vice-Chair Lippert. I am sorry I thought I saw your hand up. The appellant will
have 15 minutes to speak and then we have four other speakers. So Mr. Bonomi, welcome.
Mr. Flavio Bonomi, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for taking the time. I am sorry we
chose a low-tech presentation and we are not familiar with the logistics here.
Chair Holman: Excuse me. What we have done in the past is put it on an easel on this end and
that way all the Commissioners can see it and members of the public can see it. So if you might
put it over there that might be helpful. Sorry to interrupt you.
Mr. Bonomi: Sorry to speak over you. Good evening Commissioners and thank you for giving
us the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you for your work on behalf of the community. It is
nice to see democracy at work. This is motivating me to actually pursue something that I
promised my wife, which is to submit my application for citizenship after 26 years in this
country. So that is a promise I will do. It is interesting we are here to support an application for
the removal of two trees when we are really nature lovers, We love Palo Alto and we are deeply
concerned about our environment. I grew up in the Alps. I grew up remembering summers in
the woods hunting for mushrooms. The fir trees or what we call redwood trees there and large
trees and really loving these evergreens deeply throughout my life. Lauren is the daughter of a
graduate from Penn State in forestry. We are members of the Sierra Club, we have been
members for seven years, we make our monthly donations and we are following all the
discussions about environment, global warming, the redwoods up in Eureka, and all those things.
So it is interesting that we are here to pursue something that seems to be contradictory.
While we were very excited when we came and rented the property 12 years ago and then we
bought the property about having these trees there. The time in between has taught us many new
things and our attitude has changed. It has brought us to this point.
We are not arborists but we did some research and we lived with the trees for 12 years. We
believe our coast redwoods are not healthy trees nor are they good looking specimens of this type
of tree. The report from Jim McClenahan the more recent one is pretty strong in the direction of
seeing these trees not as healthy. He is pretty respectable, has a long tradition in this business.
Both trees have been topped. One before our ownership and the second one in the last few years.
In fact you can see from the pictures, the pictures on the back, most people cannot see the trees
when they drive by because they are so tall. But you can see that both trees, the one on the right
has been topped many, many years ago, the other one we had topped after the new growth split
off in about six years and grew like seven or eight or ten feet. So we believe that when trees are
topped or the top dies they are not in good health. It is a sign of a struggling tree. Also the trunk
is open to water going in and disease going in. In fact you can see from the pictures on the left
side there on the second row that the size of the double top, you see that, and then you see the
interior. The shape is not round and it doesn’t look healthy the way it was cut out that shows that
Page 3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
1 this is the most recently topped tree. So according to McClenahan the trees are also subject to
2 bow tree or botrospheria infection (fungus disease). I don’t know what it is. We suffered a very
3 substantial amount of litter from the trees much more than we have seen in the early years and
4 much more than anybody that has trees like that I see. There is a huge amount of sap coming
5 down constantly, huge amount of cones that is really unusual. So we believe that the trees are
not healthy at this point and from our research we believe that the topping or the need for topping
is a sign of a disease.
The second point is through our investigation we believe that in looking around at the trees in
our neighborhood we believe there is a general problem with trees of this type, coast redwoods in
our neighborhood. They are all struggling. They are all pretty young. As you know they are not
native to that part of town. In that part of town there were grasses and oak trees because there
was not enough moisture, there was not enough fog, and not enough water in the rain and so on
to support the native environment of these trees. In fact you see our street in 1904 had oak trees
and grasses which was from the Indian times, the nature of the place. The trees were planted
only about 50 years ago and not being natural they are large. At this size, at this age they are
starting to struggle. We are seeing a number of those with split tops and/or broken tops. We
have a little map there that shows all the ones or some of them around us that have been topped
or are drying at the tip and ready to fall. They are in crisis. I think this is due to the fact that
they are planted there not belonging to this particular area, oaks are. We have a problem here
that they need a lot of water so we need to support that way but the water at the top that comes
from fog is not there. When they get to a certain level they seem to be struggling.
So at this point the key thing for us is these huge safety concerns for our children, neighbors, and
property. In the past years many huge limbs have fallen. Bette, our neighbor that will speak
later, had about eight cases of large branches coming down. One destroyed her fence, the other
one almost hit her car and it took three people to move it. Whenever there is a storm, whenever
there is wind that comes exactly from the north towards the trees that are in front of the house we
are shaking in our boots. Lauren is really stressed by this. Recently we saw with the recent
storm and there is a title there of same type of tree that came down and hit the truck in Menlo
Park. We have another case with the pictures of the treetop that fell on the 3rd of January in our
neighborhood. There is a picture there. So all these tips are coming down. Large branches are
coming down and it is really becoming a huge problem and we are really afraid of what is going
on and what will go on as these trees become bigger and bigger. They are only 50 they are
babies. They could last 1,000 years in non-natural conditions.
So in our application we dwelled much more on the other problem, which is the nuisance to us
and to our neighbors. We rebuilt the house. We probably went through this Commission for
approval and now we see the amount of litter, sap, and staining from these trees is amazing.
Every time there is wind we have to be there to take away the seeds because otherwise
everything gets marked. A number of pictures on the back of this board that show the amazing
damage to our stonework, tile work, and so forth. So we are stressed by this so the quality of
life, the nuisance, which is not captured by the rule but is the nuisance to our quality of life,
neighbors is very high.
Page 4
1 The next point is we have been good citizens. We followed all the rules. We did everything to
2 maintain these trees correctly. The total of our expenses to maintain the trees is very high. We
3 spent about $20,000 in the last ten years, about $2,000 a year, to maintain, prune according to all
4 the rules, protect when we built the house. This is a very big burden for trees that are as you see
5 they are not particularly good looking, you will hear from Barrie they don’t add a lot to our
6 property. They take away from the value of our property and we have chase around all the sap
7 and all the disturbance they create. So on top of this the rule that protects these trees came after
8 we bought the house. So we are imposed the safety and the nuisance problems after we bought
9 the house and we have not one but two of these trees that were planted there by someone that left
10 behind. So this is the point.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Our conclusion, our summary here is we have two opinions one positive and one negative. We
believe having lived close to the trees the trees are not in good shape. They are only 50 years old
and they are topped and diseased and they are only going to create more problems. We believe
and this is something the Commission should take a look at more broadly, we believe that there
is a safety problem waiting to happen here. A lot of these trees are getting to that age we are
seeing things happen. You probably saw the picture, we had a friend that had one fall on her
garage about six years ago. So they are getting to that point that something is starting to really
happen systematically at every storm. This is due to the no natural situation in which these trees
are growing. So we also feel that we have a huge liability here because if anything happens to
the kids, the neighbor’s kids, we could be sued because despite our taking care of the trees the
risk is very high. We hope that the City at this point takes this into account. We are coming here
to notify you that we are worried, there is a problem here, and we don’t want to be the only one
liable with respect to this situation. So we don’t want to dwell too much on the issue of the
damage to the property and our neighbor’s property. You can see the pictures behind. It is sad
to make a big effort to make a good looking house to enhance the value of the city and then see it
damaged, marked so much by these trees that we inherited without a choice.
So getting to the conclusion we would like to ask you to consider giving us permission to act
responsibly for our safety and for the safety of others by removing these trees. We would be
very happy to replace them with specimens that are more appropriate for the city environment
and less demanding in terms of maintenance and water in particular. We understand it is very
difficult to make a decision on this matter. In particular we have two respected arborists with
two different opinions ad Dave Dockter mentioned. We are open to bringing a new or third
opinion here if the decision not easy in this sense.
The other point I would like to make in conclusion is that the ordinance seems to be somewhat
limited and rigid. If you look at it the few points are a dead tree, an immediate danger/hazard, or
a nuisance to public property and not to the owner’s, not to the neighbor’s and so on. We believe
that this ordinance that came in 2000 or 2001 needs to be looked at and maybe rethought and
made more sophisticated, that would give more degrees of freedom in terms of judging situation
by situation what could be done with respect to the safety and the more general nuisance that
these trees cause. So I would like you to take our feedback here in that sense. I think that the
situation is beginning to be a problem because the non-natural trees are beginning to be in crisis
and they are starting to be a problem for the citizens and probably for the city more in general. I
would hope that we can together find a more flexible approach to this protection of these trees,
Page 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
1 which we respect, we know they are very serious, they are very big. They should be considered,
2 treated, managed with care and in particular if people want to plant these trees they have to also
3 be responsible for what will happen in the future. In 50 years they are already at that size. In 20
4 years, which is a very short span of life, they are already very remarkable. They need to be
5 maintained properly, they need to be fed properly and in fact don’t belong to this particular area
here.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Bonomi: Thank you.
Chair Holman: We have three speaker cards. Bette Miller Dean to be followed by Lauren
Bonomi.
Ms. Bette Miller Dean, Palo Alto: Thank you. In the picture you can see a little bit of my home,
which is adjacent to the Bonomi’s. As you can also see our lots are rather narrow so what is on
one yard when it has that kind of size impacts on another yard and another population. When I
moved into my home seven and a half years ago approximately I thought like everyone else,
wow, this is awesome I have a redwood tree in my front yard. As time went on I began to realize
that this tree is rather dangerous. As has been stated large branches have moved down, come off
of it. I have not been able to move some of them and fortunately neighbors have helped out to
get them out to the street so that the City could take them. It begs the question now that I have
grandchildren could one of these branches come down and hurt not only my children, the
Bonomi’s children, but there are quite a few children who travel the sidewalk in order to get to
their school, Walter Hayes. It is not an imaginary issue. It is an issue that really is very
problematic because the tree is going to be there if it cannot be removed for I don’t know how
many more years. Should it die in five, ten, 20 or 40 years the trees will remain a problem. I
think that it behooves the Commission to think about that since the ordinance itself is so recent
even the thought that people are planting more and more of these trees in confined spaces
without realizing what the consequences are. They can plant them but they can’t take them out.
So short of the top falling off and short of someone being hurt never mind my house, never mind
my car which was about six inches or a foot away from that large branch that we were referring
to that happened a couple of times. The fence broke and that was repaired. It was repairable. It
is of a very considerable concern to have these trees like this. As the Bonomi’s said and I would
state the green of Palo Alto has always been very enticing. If you see the yards you will see that
we take great care in keeping our neighborhood and our homes well kept and these trees are
really a hazard. I am also asking that you consider some means by which to allow them to be
taken down before they age much more and potentially create an even greater problem. Thank
you.
Chair Holman: Thank you. We have cards from Lauren Bonomi and also from Sid Mak. I
don’t see Sid Mak. Ms. Bonomi.
Ms. Lauren Bonomi, Palo Alto: Thank you for your time especially so late on a Wednesday
night. Sid is not able to be here he had to go pick up his daughter but he was kind enough to
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
spend some time with us earlier. He is our neighbor on the other side who had helped Bette clear
some of the branches when we were away.
I wrestled with this application for a very long time. I never would come to a request like this
lightly because these are living gifts to this world. To have two of these in our front yard is truly
a miracle. However, I have two other little miracles who are sleeping at a neighbor’s house right
now that are a little more important to me if I may be so biased. We have a responsibility as
members of this community when we have trees that are 65 to 70 to 100 feet tall three times
taller than the roof of my house if just a cone comes off of the top of that tree and hits somebody
it hurts. When the storms come through our neighborhood they come directly through those
trees towards the front of our house. My son’s bedroom is in the front of the house. I am not
worried about the tree tipping over I am worried about just one branch, just the top of one of
those trees coming down and falling in the wrong direction. You can’t predict that. These are
giants and they are only 50 years old. If you look at the other trees in our neighborhood that are
of that height and that size all of them are having similar problems. Our neighbor three doors
down has a redwood tree and the top is dead. Numerous other trees on the map have split tops,
that is a redwood tree that is struggling because it does not have the water and the moisture that it
needs. These trees needs hundreds and hundreds of gallons of water every day especially at the
top and they are not protected in a canopy where they are in the coast in the fog belt where they
are down in the basins like in Big Basin where they get the moisture that they need. They don’t
have that here. These trees were planted 50 years ago and they are all starting to have this
struggle. It is going to be many other neighbors up here having similar applications. We need to
look at this in a bigger scope. We have a wonderful canopy and we are very grateful for it. I
grew up in colonial America back on the East Coast. I love having this canopy but maybe it is
time to think about having to rejuvenate it when there is a danger and a hazard involved
especially in a small urban environment like Downtown or Old Palo Alto where you are talking
about very small lots. I have seen branches come down, limbs the formal term, limbs come
down. I have cleaned them up personally. It has taken all of our effort to drag them out of the
way to be able to get into our driveway because that is exactly where they fall is in front of our
house and on top of our house. I don’t want to be there when that happens. Thank you very
much for your time.
Chair Holman: Thank you very much. We have no other speakers so we will close the public
comment period. Commissioners, questions for Staff? Commissioner Sandas.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. I am wondering if in denying the application to remove the
trees and then a tree limb falls and injures someone who is liable? Is that a liability for the City
because we denied the application to take them out because they could be dangerous?
Ms. Campbell: No. Part of the requirement is finding that the tree is hazardous. I am not an
arborist so I will leave it to Dave to make that determination. If we can make the findings that
the tree was not hazardous then our basis for denying the application to take it down was within
the requirements of our ordinance.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt.
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: Dave, we didn’t have copies of the Tree Technical Manual and I could
have pulled it off line but I didn’t have time to go through the whole thing. Could you give us
any pertinent aspects to essentially the Tree Maintenance Manual? I was surprised to see all the
topping that occurred. I was surprised to see that the front yard is essentially completely covered
with pavers. Was that part of the building plan in the 2004 period and is having a virtually
impervious, I realize they are interlocking pavers but, virtually impervious surface detrimental to
the long term vitality of the trees?
Mr. Dockter: A portion of the pavers that were installed there were previously asphalt and
paved. The right hand tree it was replaced, the hardscape was replaced. It was all part of the
approval that Mr. Coate had reviewed and determined was acceptable for the health of the trees.
The guidelines that he set up for the root protection were built into his recommendations. So the
Staff felt comfortable about approving the project for the work around both redwood trees. It
could be detrimental over the long term. I would say more the left hand tree where previously
there was more open air available to the soil. There is less of that now and more of the
interlocking pavers. Mr. Coate didn’t feel like it was going to be a significant detriment to them.
So Staffmade the decision to approve the building permit based on that.
Chair Holman: As a quick follow up to that. Can I just confirm that what was approved as a part
of the building permit was the entire coverage that is present now? The entire coverage was
approved as part of the building permit application? In other words, when I was out there the
whole front yard is bricked overand that was all part of the original building permit application?
Mr. Dockter: Well it is not 100 percent all paved. There is area around the left hand tree that is
opened up a little bit.
Chair Holman: I guess what I am asking is is everything that is currently paved including the
front yard, whatever portions are or aren’t paved, was all of that a part of the original building
permit application?
Mr. Dockter: I can’t answer that at this time, The degree of or the arc or how much square
footage actually was if any changed at all between the building permit and what is out there now.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Garber I believe you are next.
Commissioner Garber: Several questions. The comment has been made that the lots are small.
Are they standard size lots or are they substandard?
Mr. Dockter: It is 50 by 150.
Commissioner Garber: Do the trees either in their placement within the property or with their
canopy intrude on the buildable area of the property right now? I am saying they exist I assume
within some of the side yard setbacks or front yard setbacks that are there. Does the canopy
extend beyond that side yard setback or front yard setback?
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
Mr. Dockter: Their stems are located in the side and front yard setbacks. Of course their canopy
and root area go into the building area. That was scrutinized with the new building project and
again was deemed adequately safe to place the structure and the placement of the trees would
still be viable. So to answer your question in the last building project it did not present a
limitation for the structure to my knowledge.
Commissioner Garber: I note that the application has been made without an intent to improve
the house itself. The application is being made purely on the basis of safety and nuisance that
the tree presents and not as a part of an improvement to the house, that is correct?
Mr. Dockter: Which application are you referring to?
Commissioner Garber: The current application to take down the trees.
Mr. Dockter: It has nothing to do to my knowledge with adding on or improving the existing
house.
Commissioner Garber: Second line of questions here ifI may. Is it in fact a trend that when
redwoods reach about the age of 50 that there is a trend where they tend to lose their health in
this geography?
Mr. Dockter: I am not aware of a trend that you could attribute to citywide. I think for each tree
the soil conditions -- it would be a microclimate in itself that would have to be evaluated.
Ground water and soil density and texture would all play a role. I don’t think a climate effect is
happening to all redwoods at 50 years old that you could say that, no.
Commissioner Garber: Do these specific species of redwoods rely on the fog layer that the
coastal redwoods rely on for moisture absorption to create nutrients for themselves, etc.?
Mr. Dockter: I don’t think it would be a reliance factor. They would use it if it were there they
would use it. The trees will use and live and survive on whatever is available. They will adapt
to that microclimate. If it is dry they will adapt to dry. If it is very wet they will adapt to that
and grow faster and fuller. I think dryer they would still survive but they would be more sparse
and less vigorous.
Commissioner Garber: With the Chairperson’s allowance I would follow one more thread here.
Just because I don’t know how many redwoods are there in Palo Alto, about? Thousands?
Hundred?
Chair Holman: Well, I have two.
Mr. Dockter: I don’t know.
Commissioner Burt: There are 50 within a block of my house all this age or older.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Garber: How many applications does the City receive in a year’s time to take
down redwoods, approximately?
Mr. Dockter: They are all protected tree applications. I think last year it was 60 and two-thirds
of that I believe last time I checked were redwoods versus oaks.
Commissioner Garber: Do you happen to know offhand how many of those applications were
accepted or denied, either way? Approximately, I am just trying to get a sense of it.
Mr. Dockter: There were two that were withdrawn, none were denied last year.
Commissioner Garber: So if there were 60 last year, 40 of them were redwoods and all 40 were
allowed to be taken down.
Mr. Dockter: Correct.
Commissioner Garber: Were those in substantially, if I were to walk out and see those trees I
would notice visually I would be able to see that there is a limb hanging or some immediate
hazard to the public that I would not see with these trees?
Mr. Dockter: The materials in the arborist reports that accompanied the application clearly
displayed the findings again confirmed by Staff review of the conditions. So we verified the
findings that were displayed in the arborist report.
Commissioner Garber: Are these two arborist here, have you received applications that have
contained their reports and have they supported applications that you have approved the removal
of those trees?
Mr. Dockter: Yes, both.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you.
Chair Holman: I believe Vice-Chair Lippert was next.
Vice-Chair Lippert: With regard to the coast redwoods it is only recently that they have become
heritage trees in Palo Alto, is that correct?
Mr. Dockter: Relatively recently, in 2001.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, so within the last seven years. The City Council adopted them and
incorporated them into the heritage trees ordinance. Can you give us some background as to
why they did that? Why they thought that redwoods were important to be preserved in Palo
Alto?
Mr. Dockter: Briefly when that change did occur they cited that redwood trees had a special role
in Palo Alto’s history due to the original Palo Alto Redwood serving as a regional landmark.
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The City Seal includes a redwood tree as its central focus. Redwoods are among the tallest in the
city and are the state tree of California. Moreover, they are planted widely in Palo Alto so that
virtually every neighborhood has been and can be impacted by the removal of large redwoods.
Preservation of trees and other heritage trees will help neighborhoods retain great historic and
aesthetic environmental value.
Vice-Chair Lippert: So basically it is a character-defining feature of the city. Is that correct?
Mr. Dockter: I would say that that’s what Council had in mind.
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Just a follow up on Commissioner Garber’s line of questioning.
With regard to redwood trees becoming distressed and losing uppermost branches and falling
that is not common to just redwoods that happens to many trees, it happens to oaks.
Mr. Dockter: That is correct. It is not exclusive at all to redwoods. Sudden limb drop is a term
that has been applied to almost every species that does grow large and can grow large. You are
correct in that assessment.
Vice-Chair Lippert: In fact I live right near Johnson Park. We have had several major limb
breaks within the last year.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma, I believe you were next.
Commissioner Tuma: I have just a couple of quick things. One is a question of Ms. Bonomi. In
your letter of December 17th there was an issue raised about health effects on yourself. That is
not something that was brought up tonight. I would just like a little more background or
clarification. There is an issue here about allergies.
Ms. Bonomi: I did bring that up but I was limited to three minutes. I could go on for days about
a lot of these items. Since moving to California I have found an increase in sinus infections and
when I finally was tested for that I lit up like a Christmas tree with allergies to a number of
things, food allergies, trees, the whole nine yards. As a result I am on constant allergy
medication to reduce inflammation so that when I get the common cold it doesn’t always require
a month of antibiotics to get over it. There were several years where I was on average on
antibiotics six times a Year. So it gets to be a little wearing when you are trying to take care of
your children.
Commissioner Tuma: In the testing that you had done was there specifically an allergy called
out to redwood trees?
Ms. Bonomi: Yes, yes I was specifically tested for redwood trees. I don’t like to talk about
allergies a lot because most people if you don’t suffer from allergies you don’t have a clue. So I
usually try to keep it rather quiet. Most people if you have read any of the documentation about
allergies specifically plant or tree allergies because you are in your home so often if they are
immediately around your house you tend to suffer much more from trees that are immediately
around your house if that happens to be a sensitivity. If I were allergic to pine trees but I didn’t
Page 11
1 have any pine trees around my house my allergies would not be such an issue because I wouldn’t
2 be constantly exposed to them and constantly irritated and inflamed trying to fight the allergen. I
3 don’t know ifI explained it well but that is my attempt.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Tuma: You did, thank you. So a follow up question the to that response. Within
the definitions of what we are looking at how are health impacts on residents taken into account
in terms of meeting any of the criteria that we are looking at?
Ms. Tronquet: They are not. We are looking at the health and condition of the tree itself.
Commissioner Tuma: Okay. One other question unrelated to those two but since we are doing
multiples here. Let’s say that the appeal is denied and the decision is upheld. Is there anything
that at any point in any way inhibits their ability to bring another application at some point down
the road?
Ms. Tronquet: No.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Keller.
Commissioner Keller: First of all I am sympathetic with your issue of allergies since I have
taken allergy pills for probably the last four years and I take them every day of the year.
I am sympathetic with the mess on your property. I have a city tree located adjacent to my
driveway, it is actually on the property line between me and the adjacent property owner’s
driveway. It has a tendency to put out pollen at certain times of the year so I have to wash my
cars frequently because they get a lot of yellow dust on them. It does make me sneeze in my car
from the yellow dust but somehow I deal with it.
A question about redwood trees. I am reaching for the limits of my knowledge ofbi01ogy and
trees and redwoods in particular. I am wondering the extent to which redwoods that are in a fog
belt, my understand and correct me if I am wrong, is that the pine needles collect water which
then drips down, in other words pine needles are sort of designed if you will to collect water that
drips down to the bottom of the tree so that they can be then be absorbed through the relatively
surface roots of the tree. Does that sort of match your model of the universe?
Mr. Dockter: You are describing a drip line effect sheeting off of needles. When God made
needles and directed water to go certain places. Yes, that should satisfy that question.
Commissioner Keller: Let me rephrase it. The issue is that the trees don’t necessarily absorb
water through their needles they absorb water through their roots and that the nature of the
needles are to cause the water to drip on the roots so that they can then be absorbed. Is that
reasonable?
Mr. Dockter: There would be a correlation between the drip line and the root zone that would
absorb the dripping off water, yes.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Keller: And since redwoods have ~relatively surface collection of roots then the
issue of adequate water, adequate drainage, things like that are actually quite critical to the health
of a redwood tree. Is that reasonable to say?
Mr. Dockter: Yes.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. There was a statement made by the applicant that coast redwoods
tend to be located if you will on the coast. There was some statement to the extent that coast
redwoods are in the hilly areas. I am wondering before people came about and started planting
coast redwoods on the flatlands were there coast redwoods around? Obviously E1 Palo Alto was
around long before anybody created Palo Alto: So I am wondering whether there were other
coast redwoods or did they occasionally show up on the flatlands?
Mr. Dockter: They are associated with riparian areas and valleys, Santa Cruz Mountains, and
however far down their genetic strain would allow them to go associated again with wetter areas
than drier areas they would come down out of the foothills area. In Palo Alto virtually all of the
plant material and trees we have in town with the exception of some of the ancient century old
oaks are planted and brought in and introduced to the landscape yards around.
Commissioner Keller: So would it be fair to say that a critical issue of the health of redwood
trees in Palo Alto is not that they don’t belong on the flatlands but that they require adequate
water because these trees are generally healthier in wetter areas and therefore as you said, stream
sides and things like that. Is that reasonable to say that adequate water is critical?
Mr. Dockter: It is a pretty major factor.
Commissioner Keller: Are there any other factors that you think are important?
Mr. Dockter: For health?
Commissioner Keller: Yes.
Mr. Dockter: Several. I do want to distinguish between health and structure. Health and the
safety of a tree are two pretty separate aspects that were looked at by both Staff and both
arborists. So I do want to clarify that discussion on tree health and the safety need to be
separated a little bit at least for the idea of assessing .the tree’s safety is involved.
Ms. Tronquet: If I could just interrupt for a quick minute to maybe help focus your discussion
because it is getting late. What you are looking at tonight is whether these two trees are either
hazardous or constitute a nuisance as defined in our Tree Ordinance. So maybe we could focus
the discussion in on these two trees a little bit more because it is about 11:30.
Commissioner Keller: Okay. Thank you.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Sandas.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
Commissioner Sandas: So in essence the only way that these trees could ever be replaced
according to our ordinance is if they meet any of the findings or they are dead. So I think the
applicants had stated that they were interested in planting a different variety of trees. Is that
right? And that is not acceptable with the current Tree Ordinance?
Mr. Williams: No. That is not one of the findings for removal of a tree.
Ms. Tronquet: What we are talking about is whether these two trees can be removed and that is
all for tonight.
Chair Holman: A couple of questions. We had three letters in our packet that were pertaining to
this item and then one at our places tonight. There were two letters in support of the applicant
and two letters in support of the denial. Has Staff received many communications regarding
this? Is there a feeling of like what the temperature is in the neighborhood about the value of
trees or these trees in particular?
Mr. Dockter: Yes. I received several phone calls, three to be exact. I spoke with neighbors in
the area that were in favor or wanted to see the Director’s Decision upheld and that the trees
remain. They did also incidentally mention that the Bonomi’s were extremely wonderful folks
and at the same time they wanted to see the trees remain after reviewing the materials that we
had online. They did not put that into written form however.
Chair Holman: Okay. The need to maintain the trees, the applicant said that they had spent a
considerable amount of money maintaining these trees and about the messiness of the trees. I
have Pepper trees, Redwoods, Diadoras and street trees of Magnolias at my place. There is a lot
of stuff that goes into my compost bins every week. Do you see that there is any undue burden
on this property owner in terms of maintenance or tree debris that isn’t applicable to other
property owners in their neighborhood or any neighborhood in Palo Alto?
Mr. Dockter: I would just want to give a qualified answer that it is expected that all trees would
need some sort of maintenance at some point to control size and whatnot. The size of the tree or
the size of the job would be the difference between one property owner and another.
Chair Holman: So a nuisance factor is basically consistent just based on What the trees are and
how many there are and that sort of thing but it is not - but tree debris if it is typical tree debris is
not considered a nuisance.
Mr. Dockter: Not according to the ordinance.
Ms. Tronquet: Remember that the definition of nuisance is tree or shrub on any private property
or on any street of a type or species apt to destroy, impair or otherwise interfere with street
improvements, sidewalks, and similar facilities.
Chair Holman: I guess I should have lumped into that hazardous or nuisance because they were
talking about tree debris also becoming a hazard if it fell.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Tronquet: Right, but to answer your question the burden of maintenance wouldn’t
necessarily fall into that category.
Chair Holman: Okay, thank you. I think I have probably just one more question. It is a two-part
question though. It has to do with the permeability. Mr. Dockter you weren’t able to quite
answer if the paving in the front yard was part of the original application. Mr. McClenahan’s
report states that it is pavers on top of compacted base rock, which to my experience is not very
permeable. So I am wondering if that, you don’t have to answer this now, but I am wondering if
that affects the permeability and the life of these trees and the health of the trees. So I think that
probably should be looked into after our action tonight.
Also when I visited the site on Sunday there was actually a car parked immediately in front of
the house on those pavers. So I guess I would question whether that has an impact on the trees
or on the roots underlying those pavers and also if that is allowed in our code to allow to park in
the front yard. Those are follow up questions for the Staff to follow up with the owner on.
Are there any other questions or comments or are we ready for a motion? So looking for a
motion. Commissioner Burt.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: I will move to deny the appeal of the Planning Director’s denial of an
application to remove the two coast redwoods at 526 Lowell pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal
Code Chapter 8.10.
SECOND
Vice-Chair Lippert: I will second that:
Ms. Tronquet: Just a clarification that you are recommending to the Council to deny the appeal.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, that is the recommendation.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Burt, would you care to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Burt: Only that our purview is to look at whether the request for support of the
appeal is conformant with the findings that are necessary. As I review the findings I don’t
believe that they are. The only ambiguous part is whether it is hazardous in its present condition
and I think in this we have to presume that we are talking about an unusual and imminent hazard
because all mature trees present hazards of sorts. In that regard don’t see things that are beyond
what can be dealt with by proper maintenance of the trees.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Lippert, would you care to speak to your second?
Vice-Chair Lippert: I think that Commissioner Burt covered it adequately. I think that in fact he
stated it more accurately than I probably would. I also think that the trees are a character
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
defining feature in Palo Alto and that is the reason why they are in the ordinance. These trees
should be retained. I think that part of the problem here is that we have two conflicting arborist
reports. One that at the beginning of the project said that these were perfectly healthy specimens
and then after the project completed there was an arborist report that was contradictory to that. I
think what that does is open up the possibility that perhaps in the future the homeowners might
want to consider getting another opinion and submitting another arborist report and another
application in the future. I don’t think it closes the door on this issue at all it just says that at this
point these trees are not a hazard.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Garber.
Commissioner Garber: These trees are messy and they do cause allergies, they do stain things,
they do get too big, they are too large, and it is frustrating having to deal with them. I am really
torn. I cannot make a finding to refute the Director’s recommendation here based on the criteria
that we have been given as much as I would like to. It is clear that this has been very painful and
you are not the only family that I know that has struggled with these issues. But this is one of the
things that this city treasures and is a resource to the city and unfortunately I have to support the
motion as much as I wish I could find another way to relieve some of the pain and the struggle
that you have gone through.
Chair Holman: Commissioner Tuma.
Commissioner Tuma: As I sat here and listened to the presentation that you both gave it
reminded me a lot of some of the issues. I have a couple of small kids and we have a big
redwood tree in our front yard and I also suffer from allergies. So I understand some of the
things you are going through personally. I see your point of view, I understand, and can
empathize with the struggles. The reason I asked the question before about whether this in any
way impacts your ability to revisit this issue is because I would concur with the comments that
Commissioner Lippert made that that may in fact be the best solution if the decision passes
tonight. So I don’t think it is something you necessarily have to live with forever if these trees
are in fact diseased, problematic, dying. You certainly should and could look at that again. I did
have the pleasure to drive by your home. It is a beautiful home. I love the trees, they are
gorgeous, and I understand the impacts. So I don’t think it is necessarily the end of the road but I
like Commissioner Garber find it difficult under these circumstances and what we have in front
of us tonight to do anything other than support the current motion but I don’t think it is
necessarily the end of the discussion and the issues for you guys. Obviously by nature of the
kind of people you appear to be you will look after this and when the time is fight if it is
appropriate you will bring it back but I am going to be in favor of the motion.
Chair Holman: Briefly I will just say I will also be in support of the motion not only because I
can’t find any reason or any evidence based on our purview that would cause me to not concur
with the Staff conclusion but also one thing that guides me and I can absolutely appreciate when
I moved to California I developed allergies actually and have had them not for some 30 years
since being here. Having said that I also know that just like purchasing anything I need to be
cognizant of what I am buying and what the result of that is and because you are the folks that
purchased this property - excuse me - because they were on the property when you bought it and
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
then you were the family that built the house that leaves me with another set of conclusions. I
understand what you are saying about they weren’t protected when you bought the property but
rules do change and cities have that purview to do. So I can be somewhat sympathetic but I can’t
make findings to approve your application. So if there are no other comments.
Ms. Campbell: I just want to add one thing. Commissioner Burt, I misspoke earlier. I believe
your recommendation would be to recommend to the Council to deny the request to remove the
trees not to deny the appeal. The applicant’s had their appeal tonight and the Council will
consider that as well but the recommendation would be to deny the request to remove the trees.
Commissioner Burt: Okay.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Holman: Okay, with that clarification then we will vote on the motion. All those in favor
say aye. (ayes) That passes unanimously on a seven to zero vote. So thank you Commissioners
and we have just a little bit of business still to conduct.
Page 17