|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In an echo of its last encounter with a Woodside property owner who had felled major trees without a permit, the Town Council last week chose to once again reduce the statutory fine by half and offer a refund if the property owner spends an equal amount on managing the health and safety of the property’s remaining trees.
By a 6-1 vote on Jan. 14, the council rejected Stadler Drive residents Elton and Sara Satusky’s appeal of a $12,500 fine for the felling two mature Douglas firs without a permit. The council halved the fine of $5,000 for the first tree and $7,500 for the second. A full $6,250 refund is available if the couple spends the same amount in managing forest health and fire safety among the approximately 200 trees said to be on their property, which is adjacent to the deeply forested Wunderlich Park.
Councilman Ron Romines, voting no, disagreed with the refund offer. “My concern was that (decision) allows folks who cut the trees to end up with no fine whatsoever,” he said in an interview.
The council also reaffirmed the view that contractors share responsibilities around acquiring permits. In a departure from previous rulings, however, the town will assess a $6,250 fine against the contractor in this case, the Juan Huerta B. Tree Service in Redwood City. The council also required the couple’s cooperation in working with the town to register complaints about the contractor to the Contractors State License Board.
Five stars
In appealing the staff’s $12,500 fine, Ms. Satusky noted that the contractor had a stump-grinding machine and five stars in its Yelp listing.
“I had a really good feeling,” she said. “I didn’t realize that I had to go and get a permit. … You know what I mean? I just didn’t know.”
Mr. Satusky added: “My wife thought the tree contractor pulled the permit. He thought we did. We’re law-abiding citizens. I’ve never broken the law.”
The felled firs were overcrowded, said Roy C. Leggitt III, an arborist with Tree Management Experts in San Francisco and a consultant for the Satuskys. There were “lots of trees in a really small space,” he said. “That kind of congestion is not fire safe and it’s not sustainable. We stop (natural forest) fires and we end up with too many trees. … A fire (on such a slope) would be absolutely catastrophic in a setting like that.”
Nevertheless, the couple should pay the full fine and seek redress from the contractor, said Councilman Dave Tanner in the discussion before agreeing to a reduced fine. “The action was done without permits. We have an ordinance that says we need permits,” he said.
“As homeowners,” Councilwoman Anne Kasten said, speaking to the appellants, “you have responsibilities, and one of them is to oversee the people who work for you.” Forest management is also a responsibility and should be revisited every year, she added.
When you’re rich, it is easier to do the crime and pay the fine than to deal with plebeian permits.
When doing remodeling, it’s not the responsibility of the homeowners to pull permits, its the responsibility of the contractor. I would have imagined the same applies to tree removal companies. I guess not…
Let the suckers burn, it’s along the same line of “responsible behavior” that our wonderful councilpersons apply the failing bridges of the Town of Woodside.
“When doing remodeling, it’s not the responsibility of the homeowners to pull permits”
The buck stops her…. elsewhere?
And if the crowded trees had caused a catastrophic fir, the couple would be fined. The permit requirement for felling trees on one’s own property is ridiculous. The property owners are responsible for the trees and so should be free to take care of them however they choose.
RW is incorrect. The homeowner is ultimately responsible to insure all work that is required to be permitted is done under permit. The contractor and homeowner can make an agreement as to who is responsible for obtaining permits, but that is a contractual issue between those 2 parties. A licensed contractor is required to do work under permit and in order to not jeopardize his/her license he/she should make sure permits have been pulled, but the contractor is not necessarily the one obligated to apply for the permits.
It would seem appropriate for Woodside and Portola Valley to do a bit more balancing of competing interests when it comes to trees. Preserving a feeling of openness, light, vistas and “viewshed” deserves its due along with the trees (which seem to be presumptively sacrosanct). Which trees are planted — and where — should receive the same scrutiny as which trees may/may not be removed. Property owners preferences and rights should also be in the mix.
When I stop to think of all that has come and gone in a mature tree’s life time….and the fact that this tree has survived it all…to cut it down seems the ultimate arrogance. Justify it any way you want.
When I think of looking out on a wide open vista where I can see the distant hills, the sky or the Bay… to obstruct that view, that feeling of freedom and openness seems like an unfortunate circumstance which should be viewed with a sense of balancing these naturally competing interests and concerns. A sense of accommodating the trees and those who legitimately value both the trees and being able to see what is in the distance beyond should help us have a productive discussion and develop some guidelines which reduce the tension surrounding these issues.
Neither trees nor views should trump the other. There needs to be a balance.