Woodside: Flap over removal of 99 trees could lead to new rules Woodside: Flap over removal of 99 trees could lead to new rules (December 07, 2005)

By Andrea Gemmet

Almanac Staff Writer

The passage of time has not dulled the sense of outrage provoked by this summer's axing of 99 towering eucalyptus trees along a well-traveled road in Woodside.

A vocal group of Woodside residents has been protesting the town's approval of a plan to remove the trees at Tom and Stacy Siebel's 30-acre property on Portola Road, as well as roadside trees along the town's right-of-way.

Removing the roadside trees is "akin to my cutting down the oaks at the end of my cul-de-sac because I don't like the way they look," said Debbie Mendelson, a longtime member of the town's Conservation and Environmental Health Committee.

Whether that anger induces Woodside officials to adopt strict rules limiting tree removal remains to be seen. The Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review a draft tree preservation ordinance next month.
Town's approval

In June, as part of a site development plan, the Siebels got permission from Planning Director Hope Sullivan to remove the eucalyptus trees from their Portola Road property and replace them with approximately 120 native tree species.

Ms. Siebel told the Almanac that a number of the eucalyptus trees were rotted on the inside and dangerous.

However, one person's landscape improvement plan is another person's clear-cut. Councilwoman Carroll Ann Hodges said she's been hearing a lot from unhappy constituents.

"It's been utter devastation over there," said Ms. Hodges. "No matter what they plant, it's going to take years to restore that canopy."

Although she agrees with residents who bemoan the deforested look, she said she believes town staff was simply following current town policy in approving the eucalyptus removal. She has repeatedly called for the council to reconsider its policy, but hasn't received any support from her colleagues.

"That was such a wonderful line of trees," said Woodside resident Simon Klemperer. "I know eucalyptus are a fire hazard and non-native, but in my view, those old eucalyptus must have been heritage trees, and they have as much historical value to us as any old building does."

It's doubtful that the Woodside Town Council anticipated tree removal on such a large-scale back in 2002 when members decided to encourage residents to remove non-native eucalyptus, acacia and Monterey pine trees in order to reduce the town's wildfire risk. Despite espousing a campaign to educate residents and town officials about its tree-removal policy, it's clear that there is still a lot of confusion over Woodside's existing rules.
Tree-removal permits

Currently, there is no such thing as a tree-removal permit in the town of Woodside. There is an over-the-counter "tree-removal form" for residents to fill out, but there's no fee for it, and it's primarily used for informational purposes by town staff.

However, the difference between a permit and a form may be purely academic to most people. Many Woodside residents and even a member of the town's Conservation and Environmental Health Committee believe that the town requires a permit for tree removal.

Woodside council members were under that same impression when, following a major wildfire in central Woodside in August 2002, town officials sought to repeal prohibitions on cutting down non-native trees they believed constituted a serious fire hazard. They were floored to discover that the tree-removal permit they wanted to get rid of didn't exist.

Council members contented themselves with encouraging residents to remove the "hazardous" trees and directing town staff to facilitate their removal and not require replacement trees.

Ms. Sullivan, the planning director, said staff approved the tree removal along the Portola Road right-of-way based on the council's 2002 direction to facilitate the removal of eucalyptus trees.

Only eucalyptus trees were cut down along the road, and they are going to be replaced by redwoods and oak trees as part of the property owner's reforestation plan, she said.
New rules?

Ms. Mendelson of the conservation committee has long been agitating for Woodside to adopt a tree-protection ordinance. The committee has put together a draft ordinance that would increase restrictions on tree removal and impose fines for scofflaws.

The ordinance is set for review by the Planning Commission in January, and then will go before the Town Council, the body that has the final decision-making authority.

The proposed ordinance would require property owners to apply for a permit to remove significant trees -- those with trunks 36 inches or more in circumference when measured from 4 feet above the ground -- and impose fines starting at $1,000 per tree if they are cut down without permits.

Town staff and a member of the Woodside Conservation and Environmental Health Committee would review the permits and make recommendations to the planning director.

Diseased or hazardous trees, or those to be removed as part of a fire- protection plan, could be cut. The Architectural and Site Review Board would decide whether to allow removal of significant trees growing on building sites, and could require replacement trees.

Ms. Mendelson said it's high time Woodside has tree-protection regulations.

"The town's No. 1 priority now is to rework the building process. A year ago, the No. 1 priority was the noise ordinance. I really don't think there's anything more important than protecting the natural environment in Woodside," Ms. Mendelson said.

Mr. Klemperer said he plans to follow the progress of the tree- preservation ordinance.

"This issue isn't dead, and now is the time to deal with it," he said.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.