As residents of Los Altos we are encouraged to plant street trees. Yet, the recently amended tree ordinance transferred street tree maintenance and liability from the City to the property owner. LANN members, Lou and Rita Cartalano suggest that the ordinance is at odds with the City's vision which calls for, “tree lined streets and a small village atmosphere” and suggest we take a fresh look at providing incentives which encourage the planting of trees.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At Risk: The Trees of Los Altos

Lou and Rita Cartalano

On the counter of the Planning & Engineering Departments at City Hall rests a copy of Ann Coombs’ book Trees of Los Altos. Ironically, it was published – by the City of Los Altos - one year after the City passed Ordinance No. 03-251 - “Amendment to Tree & Shrub Code”. This ordinance reversed a long-standing policy and transferred street tree maintenance and liability from the City to the homeowner.

The January storm brought home the consequences of this ordinance. A large city street tree that stood in front of our house fell in the high winds. The tree was a mature black acacia, about 50 years old, 40 ft. tall, and 2-3 ft. in diameter. The crown fell on our neighbor’s car across the street and the tree blocked the street until the City cleared it later that day. It since cost us $600 to haul away the tree. Our neighbor’s car was totaled.

Three similar black acacias remain, gracing the street in front of our home. The City had maintained these trees for the first 30 years we owned our home. If we saw a problem, they’d come out, check it, and schedule the necessary work. Back in the 1950s the City actually encouraged home owners to plant street trees, and in return the City maintained them. When the City Council passed the ordinance is 2003, they abruptly ended the partnership that had served Los Altos so well.

We raised this issue as guests at the LANN Board meeting on March 2nd. Our point was two-fold: that this ordinance is unfair to the affected property owners, and that it is totally at odds with the City Vision.

It is at odds with the Vision as stated at the Los Altos website, where it says: “To accomplish The Mission Statement…..Tree lined streets and a small village atmosphere characterize Los Altos.” It is also at odds with the findings of the Los Altos Vision 2000 workshop (in which we participated) which rated street trees among the City’s highest priority. And of course it is at odds with the spirit and message of the book Trees of Los Altos.

It is unfair because the City dissolved the partnership by which for decades it encouraged property owners to plant the street trees that are now 40-50 years old and especially in need of attention.

We think the ordinance is short-sighted, as it undermines, rather than supports, the Vision of “tree lined streets and a small village atmosphere”. It jeopardizes all Los Altos real estate values. We think the ordinance should be rolled back and replaced with policy that makes more sense.

The discussion at the LANN Board meeting raised some other interesting points:

Cost. On the one hand, a member estimated that at $300 for each of 10,000 lots, trimming would cost $3 million/year. But on the other hand, the February 2004 LANN newsletter reported that the savings from the ordinance “…trims 2,000 person hours from the budget…” That amounts to much less than $3 million - more like $100,000.

Liability. The ordinance transfers the liability to the homeowner, but the trees are on City property. Does this make sense? How can we secure liability insurance for a tree we don’t own and that’s not on our property? Minutes before the tree fell in that January wind storm our neighbor’s contractor was parked at the foot of the tree. What if he had been hurt?

Inconsistency. Whereas the ordinance transfers street tree maintenance to homeowners in residential areas, the City continues to maintain the street trees for commercial properties.

Taking all this into account, the street tree issue involves four problems:

The ordinance creates a glaring discrepancy between City policy and the City’s vision of “tree lined streets and a small village atmosphere”.

The ordinance may expose the City to law suits should a fallen diseased street tree injure someone who does not share the City’s view of who is liable.

The ordinance abandons well-meaning homeowners, burdening them not only for the cost of maintenance, but also for the cost of removing those trees that become diseased or fall.

Challenging economic times leaves the City with little room to meet the implied cost of maintaining all street trees, although the exact cost is uncertain.

The current policy is problematic. Presuming the cost would be prohibitive before re-opening the dialog only stifles creative solution making. For example, just removing diseased trees could address the liability and fairness issues while containing costs. An aggressive communications campaign could encourage planting of more manageable, safer trees and the emergence of volunteer citizen referral services.

It’s time for the City to take a fresh look at developing a street tree policy that supports the Vision and is fairer to homeowners. Creative solutions don’t have to be costly to the City, but the City has to open the door to a new, creative approach.