Rule change could threaten trees, say opponents and Menlo staff Rule change could threaten trees, say opponents and Menlo staff (March 31, 2004)

** Proponents of change say rule is wasteful because the tree removal permit would be granted anyway.

By Renee Batti
Almanac News Editor

Chuck Kinney has established quite the reputation about town as a champion of trees, leading an effort to line Menlo Park's El Camino Real with them, and advocating a rigorous tree-protection program citywide.

And when it comes to his own property, Mr. Kinney can be thought of as an "IMBY" -- regulating trees "in my back yard" is just fine with him.

As proof, the Menlo Park City Council member points to a 60-foot-tall, 40-inch-diameter redwood at the rear of his Creek Drive home, bestowing on the property a canopy of shade and an aesthetic kiss. It exists because Mr. Kinney and his wife, Marilyn, designed a house addition project around it rather than cut it down.

Trees like this one, he notes, "could be toast" under a proposed new rule the Menlo Park City Council is expected to act on at its March 30 meeting.

The proposed rule would exempt trees growing in the "buildable" area of residential lots from rules governing heritage trees, allowing a property owner to cut down such a tree without the currently required permit and without notifying his or her neighbors.

"It would jeopardize 60 percent of the trees of Menlo Park," Councilman Kinney said last week, using his own calculations averaging lot sizes in town.

But Councilwoman Mickie Winkler said requiring property owners to seek a tree-removal permit because the tree is in the way of their future home or house addition is a "wasteful" process, noting that most if not all construction-related applications to remove trees in 2003 were granted.

"The heritage tree ordinance is an example of a process run amok," she said last week. "It has little to do with heritage trees and too much to do with process."

It was Councilwoman Winkler who led the charge to change the ordinance last year. At the December 9 council meeting, she was joined by Mayor Lee Duboc and Councilman Nicholas Jellins in endorsing the exemption and several other amendments, directing staff to return with the proposed revisions.

The staff and the city's Environmental Quality Commission argued against the proposed exemption, with the December 9 staff report predicting that the change would make the ordinance "more complicated to administer" and "could result in the loss of a significant number of heritage trees."

The proposed exemption would not affect heritage trees in the "setback" area of a residential lot. That's the area that creates a perimeter on a lot that cannot be built on.

A heritage tree is defined as one that is at least 15 inches in diameter 48 inches from its base, with the exception of native oaks and redwood trees; the threshold for those trees is 10 inches in diameter.

The exemption of trees on the buildable lot area would be the most significant procedural change made to the heritage tree ordinance since its enactment about 25 years ago. It would also be a significant policy change, said Dianne Dryer, the city's environmental programs coordinator.

Opponents of the change insist that the ordinance has worked well, and that administrative changes made in September streamlined the process for obtaining a permit, making it more efficient and less costly.

Exempting trees in the buildable lot area would remove the incentive for property owners to try to find an alternative to cutting down trees, opponents say.

Under the current process, a property owner seeking a tree-removal permit would meet with a staff person, who in some cases could offer suggestions on how to design a house around trees on the property -- a process that sometimes results in saving trees, said Mary Kenney, chair of the Environmental Quality Commission.

"A lot of times the homeowner in the end is happy with the suggestion," said Ms. Kenney.

Also, she noted, "the data really show that there has not been a persistent problem with people being denied their applications to remove trees." If the city does deny the application, she said, the property owner can appeal the decision to the Environmental Quality Commission, and ultimately to the City Council.

"We don't have people streaming to the commission meetings complaining about this ordinance," Ms. Kenney said.

The proposed changes to the ordinance will be introduced at the Tuesday, March 30, council meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. in the council chambers, 801 Laurel St.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.