Willow Glen
Neighborhood Association

P. O. Box 7706,

San Jose CA 95150

408/294-WGNA

www.WGNA.net

Sept. 17, 2007

 

Kevin Briggs, City Manager’s Office

Tree Preservation Policy & Services Review

San Jose City Hall

200 E. Santa Clara Street

San Jose, CA 95113

 

cc:        Chuck Reed, Mayor, City of San Jose

            Debra Figone, City Manager, City of San Jose

            Joe Horwedel, Planning Director, City of San Jose

            Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose Councilmember, Dist. 6

            Judy Chirco, San Jose Councilmember, Dist. 9

 

re:        Revisions to the San Jose Tree Ordinance

 

Dear Mr. Briggs,

 

            I am writing on behalf of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association (WGNA) in support of tree preservation and of revisions to the City ordinances to enhance their protection.

 

            The arguments for and against trees and ordinances protecting them are so familiar it’s barely worth repeating them here:

• Trees are pretty, add value to the property and the surrounding neighborhood, help cool the summertime air which reduces the need for air conditioning and thus reduces energy demands, provide food and shelter for birds and wildlife, help stabilize the soil, and help absorb CO₂ and thus help mitigate climate change and global warming.
• Trees drop leaves and branches and are messy, tear up sidewalks and foundations, are expensive to maintain, and one should be able to do whatever one wants on his/her property without any interference by the government.

 

            We recognize that not every tree can, or should, be saved.  It is appropriate to remove (and replace) dead, damaged, or diseased trees, or even trees of an inappropriate species.  Not every tree is suited for its location, and the sooner it is replaced with an appropriate tree the better.  And sometimes even a healthy tree can interfere with the appropriate development of a property.  The existing City tree ordinance covers all these situations, and the permit process helps assure that the rules are followed.  Follow-up is important to assure that the required replacement trees are indeed planted and maintained: an inspection after six months could help assure compliance.

 

            The most controversial part of the ordinance relates to trees on private property.  If a tree is small, it just affects the individual landowner, and he or she is free to deal with it as he/she wishes.  However, larger trees impact larger areas: they provide cooling shade for neighboring properties and they add beauty to the area, and thus they affect the value of those properties.  The permit process protects trees over 56" in circumference to make sure that those neighbors who would be most affected by the removal of a tree have some say on the matter.

 

            The main problem we have in Willow Glen is with developers.  People love to live here because of the quaint homes, shaded gardens, and tree-lined streets.  Developers are buying parcels with small houses and established trees, scrapping everything away, building the largest mini-mansions that can fit within the property lines, and then moving on.  The purchasers of these new residences may be content – they still have a view of the surrounding trees and gardens – but the neighbors now have a monster house next door rather than the cooling and sheltering trees: in effect, the developer made a profit by taking value from the neighbors.  The tree ordinances and permits establish a process by which these neighbors can have the City planners work with the developers to find design alternatives that may save treasured trees while still allowing an economically viable development.  (I know it can be done – I talked with the developer of a project on a parcel adjacent to mine: he was able to redesign the project to shift one room a foot or two and thus spared a tall fir tree, and still sold the house for $2.4 million.)

 

            We believe several refinements are needed in the tree ordinance:

• The section on Illegal Tree Removal needs to include language on the deliberate killing of a tree: it should not be legal to poison, girdle, over-water/under-water, excessively prune, or otherwise damage or kill a tree with the intent of bypassing the appropriate tree-removal process.  (The Town of Los Gatos has a well-worded ordinance covering this.)
• The ordinance on private-property trees addresses Heritage Trees and those of Ordinance Size (56" in circumference).  The tree ordinance should also include protections of streamside trees – those that are part of the “riparian habitat.”  The City has a Riparian Corridor Policy that limits development within 100' of the edge of a riparian habitat, defined in part by the drip-line of those trees.  But if the trees and the habitat are not protected, then an unscrupulous developer might be tempted to cut the trees alongside the creek in order to shift the limiting line on a planned development project.
• The ordinance also needs to protect “mandated trees.”  There may be cases where someone cuts an ordinance-sized tree to make room for some monster house but is caught and ordered to replace the removed tree with a new tree at the same location: this effectively limits the size of the new construction.  However, the replacement tree is not going to be 56" in circumference anytime in the near future, and so, after the building inspections have been completed and signed off, an unscrupulous developer might then chop down the replacement tree and build a pre-planned room addition to complete the monster house.

 

Two other points – not part of the ordinance revisions, but instead changes in policy:

• The city’s website lists tree-removal requests as “Live Tree/Removed W-O Permit,” whether or not the tree has been already removed.  We routinely look over the permit requests in our area and would look into a requested tree-removal to see if perhaps a design variation could save the tree.  However, we don’t often go to hearings to protest permits if the trees are already gone: it won’t bring back the tree and we don’t want to penalize people just because they were unfamiliar with the permit process.  By deceptively hiding all removal requests under this false category, public participation is inhibited.
• We hope the City Arborist has (or will develop) an extensive list of trees suitable for the area.  We notice that a lot of London Plane Trees are being planted lately: they grow well, don’t tear up sidewalks, and are resistant to various fungi.  However, there is the need for bio-diversity: years ago, elms and tulip-poplars were the trees of choice and were planted everywhere, and then came along the Dutch Elm disease that wiped out the elms, and now we’re dealing with a scale that cause the tulip-poplars to drip syrup over street and car.

           

            The “urban forest” adds significantly to the community: the tree-lined streets are the most walkable, and large trees in private yards enhance the environment and the aesthetics in the surrounding area.  The City’s tree ordinance just needs enforcement, and a little enhancing, in order to properly balance property rights with the needs of the community.

 

            Please contact us if we can provide any additional information.

 

                                                                              // signed //

                                                                              Lawrence Ames, WGNA President

                                                                              president@wgna.net

 

return to WGNA Positions page

 

return to WGNA home page