Posted by J Burns, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 6:33 am
I also have had trees fall in my yard and our best friends in Marin had a Redwood Tree fall from the neighbors that caused many hundreds of thousands of dollars damage and one year of rebuilding. This tree had been deemed healthy by the County after numerous complaints about it.
They had an Attorney put the City and Neighbor on notice if the tree fell that they were financially liable. They too, had an issue with the sunlight being blocked.
Small back yards are not meant to be dominated by large trees. Quality of life should be part of the decision.
Good Luck to the Homeowners and adjacent neighbors with this problem.
Posted by danville tree hugger, a member of the Greenbrook Elementary School community, on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:16 am
I love trees. But redwoods don't belong in our valley. If they are in a location which doesn't affect the sensible lifestyle choices of landowners or city park environments adversely then they can go on living. For our city to protect a single specimen which is not indigenous and has grown past it's acceptable appearance is ridiculous. These decisions should be left to the responsible home owner. Give the permit. They deserve it.
Posted by T Hart, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 7:31 am
"They are always in clusters ... in groups called groves. The might of the tree is not in itself. Here is its strength ...for every foot in height it grows up, the redwood tree sends its roots, not down, but three times that distance ...OUT!
That's right... OUT!
If the tree is 300 feet tall, its roots go 900 feet out ... intertwining with all the groping roots from the other redwoods in the grove. By the time a few hundred years go by, those fellow-shipping roots are so woven with one another, there is no way a tree could fall down. It is held up by the strength of its brothers and sisters."
If this tree does not har the support of others in a grove it will not stand as it grows and will not be safe.
Posted by rufous, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 8:36 am
Frank is correct, better to ask forgiveness than permission. The City has "Taken" the redwood for the public interest and must now compensate the owner for the value of the tree. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to sue over this issue and establish a legal precedent to keep enviro nazis from imposing their will on private property owners. Ever heard of "mitigation"? planting 3 or 4 smaller trees on the property in exchange for removing a large one??
Posted by R Smith, a resident of the San Ramon neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:40 am
Homeowners often plant trees and shrubs that look good at the time but 25 years later they have out grown the space. That is the case at hand. It is not a natural tree left by the builder. It was planted by a homeowner and now it interferes with the curent homeowners' ability to enjoy their property. Their tree, their yard, their right to remove it. Neighbors OK with solution. What else is needed?
What we don't need are members of the Planning Commission who sit around and quote the rules. That's hiding from the problem. Their job is to help find a solution like the one mentioned above -- have the homeowner plant a few smaller trees. They are wasting our money and now the Council's time for something that should have been handled the first time it was presented.
Posted by kathy, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 9:53 am
I had a neighbor who removed 4 of them! No probem, no questions. Oh, and no application. We turned them in, but the town didn't care. The town picks and chooses what they want to go after. Quite unfair, but it's how they play ball....
Speaking of play ball... how about that field up on the hill? I bet they will just pay off the town of Danville, and they will be free and clear to get away with it. Can't remove a tree, but an entire hill side, no problem! Sick.
Posted by Robert Stannard, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 10:44 am
Danville’s “Tree Ordinance” needs to be modified with respect to Coastal Redwoods. Residents of Danville should have the right to remove Coastal Redwoods on their property should they so desire.
As background, here is some information on Coastal Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
“Although Sequoia sempervirens have been cultivated elsewhere, this tree naturally achieves its majestic heights and lush groves only in one place in the world -- a 450-mile strip along the Pacific Coast of North America, beginning in southern Oregon and ending just south of Monterey, California. The trees prosper in this mild climate zone, where winter rains and summer fog provide an even temperature and a high level of year-round moisture. The trees inhabit sheltered, well-watered places of rich soil as far inland from the Pacific Ocean as the fog drift -- seldom more than 20 miles -- and up the coastal mountainsides to about 2,000 feet elevation.” Chris Brinegar, PhD
(Dr. Brinegar is a noted redwood ecologist and retired Professor of Biology at San Jose State University. His question and answer column appears in every issue of The Mountain Echo, the quarterly redwood newsletter for Sempervirens Fund* members.
(*The Sempervirens Fund is a Coastal Redwood preservation organization.)
Coastal Redwoods are unquestionably ranked as the tallest tree on the planet, growing to 379 feet tall and 23 feet in diameter. Coastal Redwoods can quickly outgrow their usefulness as a yard ornamental / landscape tree. They require tremendous amounts of water, pose a fire hazard when located close to wood roofed homes and structures, pose safety hazards due to their tremendous size, obstruct views and are definitely not native to Danville.
Posted by George Bassett, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 10:58 am
Danville's attempt to protect a non-native species at the expense of an individual's property rights is ridiculous. This is precisely the run-amok mentality that caused Alamo residents to overwhelmingly reject incorporation.
Posted by Fred, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 12:37 pm
It's on your property cut it down. Since when did Redwoods become a protected-town species? They are not native to this area! The Planning Commision might better spend their time focusing on cleaning up Danville North of Diablo Road.
Posted by Frank, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Cut it down and deal with it later. Redwoods are not native to this valley. I had 15 ugly big pine trees and 3 redwoods in my yard I wanted out, I was going to cut down one at a time. My neighbor asked me if I had a permitt of which I replayed I was holding it. My chain saw. I proceeded to cut every tree down that day before anyone could stop me. They called the city, but the city did nothing. The city picks which battles they want to fight. I had a small fence that went to the sidewalk, I had to cut 5 feet off because of the same neighbor and yes you can see fences all along the sidewalk in every neighborhood. I was told they get to keep theirs because no one complained. I would cut it down and pay the fine or kill it and remove it then. I have heard copper nails in the trunk work well.
You could also trim all the branches on your side, tree will then be unstable and get a tree guy to write it up as a hazard and there you go. That is provided you have room for there are hazards with that last susgestion.
Posted by Esther, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2009 at 6:21 pm
One redwood was planted recently so close to the line fence it will soon ruin the fence and
our swimming pool as well. Currently it shades the pool and drops inky cones into it.
I believe the neighbors who have moved in since the tree was planted would remove it if they were allowed to do so. Another cluster in the corner of our lot, just across the fence would hit our house if it were to fall. As pointed out by another reader, coastal redwoods are not native to the San Ramon Valley and need to be in clusters to support each other. I believe the ordinance protecting them should be revoked.
Posted by Ekka, a resident of another community, on Apr 4, 2009 at 1:06 am
In UK they have similar problems of shading where neighbours deliberately plant out fence-lines with leylandii cypress. The disputes and practice went on for over a decade till they made laws to deal with the problem. Now The Anti-Social Behavioural Act - Trees and Shrubs 2003 exists.
To be a one eyed tree hugger is imbalanced and especially in urban areas where vegetation can have severe impacts on the way people want to enjoy their own yards consideration needs to given to the people, including your neighbours.
Many regulations and laws are imbalanced, driven by visions of grandeur to "save" trees however they overlook common sense of species selection and location. Why does anyone have the right to "tresspass" tree parts on your property or take away your light? If indeed the tree was there first then what considerations are made for the growth of that tree? Maybe 10 years ago it wasn't a problem, so a 30' tree is OK but when that tree has the potential to grow to 300' then is it acceptable to allow that to happen?
Often a replanting negotiation can take place, replant smaller trees in better locations, here you can even replant in public and other private places to compensate for the greenery lost, the whole equation can be carbon neutral if that's what they want to argue.
Many tree protection regulations start at a certain trunk diameter. This also has the effect of people cutting down trees once they approach that diameter. In your area according to this link Web Link the diameter must be 10" or more measured 4.5' above ground (DBH) for a redwood (native), that's small!
Also on that link in section 32-79.6 point 2 is very interesting "The necessity to remove the tree(s) to allow for the reasonable use, enjoyment, or development of the property."
Standing on the outside looking in that's some pretty tough protection laws you got there in that town for native trees, 10" dia isn't a lot.
Posted by j clare, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 4, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I think the planning commission should pay to clean up my yard every few months from the Oak tree thats not mine yet the mess is... plus I can't plant anything in that corner of the yard.. I bet they don't have any problem trees!
Posted by Fran, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 8:48 am
Home developers and new home owners don't always plant wisely. A 30 year old redwood was two feet from the corner of my home and we had to get permission to cut it down. The roots extended fifty feet under my foundation and was lifting up the corner of my house.
If the tree was left standing the cost to repair future damage would have been tremendous. Would the Planning Commission have funded that? Not likely.
Posted by denise d., a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2009 at 2:33 pm
I know that trees can uplift structures and foundations and cause problems when they grow too big. These should probably be removed. But trees actually add value to a property if well maintained and healthy, protect homes from heat with their shade and clean our polluted air. Maybe we should look at them more benignly and not be so ready to cut them down.
Posted by Halamo, a resident of another community, on Apr 7, 2009 at 7:39 am
I have discovered the humor of Danville politics! Really!!
Any neighbor, according to Danville planning gatekeepers, who wishes to remove a tree, CAN'T. You must have many trees to remove and a large construction project planned before you can remove the first tree.
So my solution is for this couple to propose planting 100 trees that will be part of the 101 trees removed for a 22 story high-rise to be built on the property. It will sail through the planning commission and Town Counsel.
Then, the couple removes the first tree and abandoned the other tree planting and high-rise project!! Since such actions would be after the fact of Danville approval, no one would notice.
Posted by Same problem, a member of the Greenbrook Elementary School community, on Apr 8, 2009 at 8:19 am
Put solar panels on your roof. State law would then require the tree to be removed.
According to California’s 1978 Solar Shade Control Act, if your neighbor decided to install solar panels and trees on your property were blocking those panels, even if the trees were in place first, they would have to be cut down.
Posted by Lynn, a member of the Monte Vista High School community, on Apr 13, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I am outraged that they city planning will allow development on the Weber property that adds congestion and blight to an already impacted area, but to allow that the protected trees can be removed is even more insulting.
Why would the dis allow this resident to remove non species trees and allow a business entity to rape and pillage is beyond belief.
Posted by Al, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Apr 13, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Rick I don't understand your comment. What neighbors tattled on whom? The way I read that story, the neighbors were working together to get rid of the tree. And they went through the right channels and asked the town to let them do it. The town clearly needs to rethink that tree removal policy.
Posted by Brian, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Al from above, you are correct. We the property owners are working amicably with our neighbors, the applicants. There is no adversity between neighbors at play only some confusion as to why this tree can't be taken down. Safety, lack of light, quality of life, and ongoing maintenance are all still real issues here. We hope that city council will see it differently.
Posted by Jill Beeman, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 14, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Thanks everyone for your support! There are several reasons that we feel the tree removal should be approved on second appeal, even though the coastal redwood is a protected tree according to the town ordinance:
1. It causes a lack of sunlight on our house and yard due to the massive size of the Coastal Redwood (which will only continue to grow as this tree is known as the largest living organism on earth.
2. The subject property has several redwoods and our neighborhood has literally hundreds of other redwoods that were planted 30 years ago. We offered to remove this one tree and replace it with another smaller and more attractive tree that would not impact the neighborhood negatively. In fact, both neighbors feel it would make a more colorful and positive impact.
3. It is not a native tree to Danville, which begs the question: why is this a protected tree in the first place ? Oaks, yes, Redwoods, NO!!!!
4. The tree is preventing 2 adjacent trees from growing properly due to lack of sunlight to them. Removal of the subject tree would allow the magnolia and liquid amber to thrive.
5. It interferes with our reasonable use and enjoyment of the property, due to its mammoth size, our fear of it falling, and the unwanted shade it creates on both properties.
(What is Danville's definition of "reasonable use and enjoyment" anyway???) Danville Town Council didn't seem to think all these reasons weren't enough...fear of falling,taking away most of my winter sunshine on our family room, I don't understand because I am not enjoying my property due to the enormity of this tree)
6. The arborist report that we commissioned and provided to the City alerts us that there is a significant risk that the tree could fall because it is isolated from other redwoods, so has no root support from nearby trees. If the tree were to fall ( an event which I have experienced 3 times in my life and was on CNN news yesterday) it could hit either house and cause serious property damage and potentially personal injury or death as well.
7. Trimming the tree is not a solution. We have trimmed the tree and it only made it thicker, meaning we would have to impact our neighbors every year or so to maintain the currently inadequate sunlight we receive. You can only trim Coastal redwoods 20% or they WILL grow thicker which we learned the hard way.
I will be at the May City Council meeting to appeal my appeal!!! I would like to reasonably enjoy the property with a legal permit since it's on my neighbors yard and they are being incredibly thoughtful. Amazing how expensive and how many hoops I am jumping through to replace one tree with another! Again, thanks for all your comments and support. Let's get this rule changed, there should be more flexibility with these massive redwoods.
Posted by Al Headstrom, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Apr 16, 2009 at 11:18 am
The Present ordinance that prohibits cutting Redwood trees in Danville should be completely reviewed. There are many reasons why they these trees should be removed in certain areas, as many previous comments state.
In my case there are about 10 trees on our adjacent properties that in the winter completely block sun from our house for 5 months of the year, making heating and electric bills very high with no way to conserve. I remember 37 years ago when these 3 1/2 ft. trees were planted. In the summer the only shade they produce is on their property directly below the trees. In winter it is all on our side.
In the Beeman's, case since both parties agree, they should be given immediate permission to remove the tree and the council should take
action to revise the ordinance in regard to the complaints against the present policy.
Posted by Ty, a resident of another community, on Apr 22, 2009 at 9:58 pm
"I am the Consulting Arborist (Dryad, LLC) that inspected and reported on this tree for the Beeman's. Virtually every jurisdiction in the Bay Area has ordinances intended to protect trees and limit their removal. However, there is no standard, and all vary tremendously relating to what species and sizes are protected, and to what extent.
Redwoods are a glorious species in a suitable environment, preferably one with extensive growing space and adequate moisture. While a revered California native, the tree is not native to the Danville area. This tree was planted, recently in terms of tree preservation.
Coast redwoods are the tallest tree in the world, and can grow easily 3-5' or more per year in height with proportionate diameter. Although many years away, the Beeman's specimen will outgrow its space, and inevitably result in conflict with adjacent structures, roofs, underground utilities, etc.
There are numerous redwoods planted and thriving throughout this neighborhood, so the removal of this one would have little affect on the character of the area.
My interpretation of Danville's ordinance is that removal could be allowed within the existing terms, as described in my report. Relaxing of the intent or language seems unnecessary. I believe allowing removal of this tree and allowing for replacement with some native species here or elsewhere could more than justify the loss of this one tree in terms of preserving the character of Danville's urban forest."