Saving Trees and Saving Dollars

Today on the City Council agenda I have an item asking that the City attorney be able to review on a case by case basis whether or not a City tree can be removed when it is determined that tree has caused property damage either to city infrastructure or private property.

Ok. Let's get this out of the way: I work very hard to preserve the environment. I have involved my Youth Council in helping with a tree inventory. I have helped plant new trees and am pressing the City Manager to help my district get more trees. But I also receive complaints from constituents whose property (sewer and plumbing lines) have been severely damaged by city tree roots --and they are unable to get those trees removed because of city policy.

I understand from the City Attorney's office that the city receives more claims against the city for tree caused damages than other issues.

The City has a tree policy that requires the arborist to determine the health of the tree. If the resident wants the tree removed and the arborist says no --then it can be appealed to the tree committee which then determines whether or not it can be removed. If the Tree Committee says nay --then the tree usually is not removed unless city staff overrides the decision -- which is unusual.

The problem is that a perfectly health tree -- such as a ficus -- can destroy public and private property and while the damages get repaired the tree continues to destroy the public and private property and the city and residents continue to have to pay for the damage.

Take Los Altos Methodist Church at Willow and Woodruff. Over the past several years the ficus trees have caused the church to pay $32,000 in sewer and plumbing bills. The trees have also seriously lifted the sidewalks surrounding the church which cause considerable trip and fall hazards. The trees are perfectly healthy and as arborists know (now)-- should never have been used as city trees because of their root systems. So we are about to repair the sidewalks but within 3 years the city will get complaints that the sidewalks are lifting again.

In other parts of the district I have stone pines that have broken off and smashed cars and homes -- and raise the streets over 3 feet preventing street sweeping and making it very dangerous to drive at night it you don't know the bumps are there.

So what I am proposing is that the City Attorney can weigh in on a case by case basis if a resident requests a removal of a tree because of the damage the tree is causing. No, I don't want Bob Shannon at the tree committee meetings, but folks let's get real here. The costs to the taxpayers are mounting up. And we are not talking about removing trees because people don't like the purple flowers or the seed pods that fall each year. We are talking about having some common sense that says if and when a tree presents a liability to the homeowner or the city that in some cases the tree can be removed.

Bottom line: let's get some risk management considerations put into some of our city policies... as in preventing risk -- not paying out claims.