July 25, 2005

the red signs

the oak grove.jpg


My neighbors on the northwest side live in a beautiful big house, built in 1918, that sits on a huge lot--actually three lots, a kind of land use miracle in this hodgepodge layered urban landscape. There are remnants of the house--and garden's--former grandeur half buried and crumbling but visible from the four-foot chain link fence that separates me from their backyard; a small cement pond, empty now and a repository for trash; a brick chimney and remnants of a patio that probably was an outdoor entertaining area; a crumbling stucco garage of a size to accomodate Model Ts not SUVs. And there are trees. Dozens of them. Some obviously planted intentionally such as the 100-foot Deodar cedars, a redwood, and many plum trees that are likely the offspring of the original ornamentals. There are also many unintentional trees, the black acacias which sprout like weeds in these parts, and a half dozen California live oaks that are most likely the ancestors of oaks that grew on this hillside long before the neighbor's house--or any house--was built here.


My neighbors are very hard working. They have a flooring business they run from the house. Two or three white vans parked in the front of the house get loaded with oak flooring from a shed in the back by the laborers hired to do the work who sometimes sleep in their own vans in front of our house to be ready to go early in the morning. They also have a large family, three generations worth as far as I can tell. I have only met the grandmother who used to take her infant grandchildren for brief walks past my front yard. I do not see her anymore. But the children have grown into kids and there are more infants and relatives about the place. There are big plans now to expand the homestead. The man at the City permit office said they are planning to build "two structures" on the lot.


Recently a letter arrived in my mailbox from the city informing me that the neighbors had applied for a permit to cut down six trees on their property. The trees were not identified. Last week I noticed red signs tacked to the big cedars in the neighbor's back yard, and on the acacia and a couple of Indian laurels. Later that day I walked past the neighbor's house and saw many more red signs--on the oak trees in the front of the house. I counted ten signs altogether. Almost every tree on the hillside estate has a red sign on it. "Marked for removal" they all said.

tree sign.jpg

Posted by briggs at July 25, 2005 8:27 AM
Comments

It is interesting that you get a notice. Do you have any legal recourse to stop them? I think in most municipalities they would not even have to notify the local government or apply for a permit to remove trees on their own property. Does the city often prohibit tree removal?

Posted by: Kathy on July 25, 2005 3:42 PM

You can fight this. Check out
http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/oakland/_DATA/TITLE12/Chapter_12_36_PROTECTED_TREES.html

This is the Oakland protected trees code. Of special interest is 12.26.050. B.1.a. in which a permit can be denied under this circumstance:

1. Removal of a healthy tree of a protected species could be avoided by:
a. Reasonable redesign of the site plan, prior to construction;

A protected tree is defined as ...

"On any property, Quercus agrifolia (California or Coast Live Oak) measuring four inches dbh or larger, and any other tree measuring nine inches dbh or larger except Eucalyptus and Pinus radiata (Monterey Pine);"

So, I think you could force them to redesign and not cut down so many trees.

The appeal process is also described in section 12.36.1.

Seems pretty straightforward, though to file an appeal you have to be an owner on an adjacent property. No reason you couldn't get your landlord to put their name on it and then have you act as his/her agent.

Posted by: Richard Frankel on July 25, 2005 8:46 PM
Post a comment