From Newsgroup: alt.home.repair
After two previous attempts to decide how to deal with a couple who
chopped down 38 trees in North Oakland in violation of the cityAs
Protected Trees Ordinance, the Oakland City Council decided Tuesday to
fine them $915,135.
The fine is perhaps the largest ever in Oakland for destroying trees.
Councilmembers Janani Ramachandran, Noel Gallo, Kevin Jenkins, Zac Unger
and Charlene Wang voted for the fine. Rowena Brown, Carroll Fife and Ken Houston voted no.
Emeryville residents Matthew Bernard and Lynn Warner purchased the
hillside lot behind the Claremont Hotel and Club in 2019. Two years
later, city staff said the couple started felling trees without permits.
The trees included native live oaks, broad-leaf maples, buckeyes and
other species.
Bernard repeatedly ignored warnings that he needed permits to cut down
the trees, city staff said. Some of the trees were on neighboring
properties.
The couple applied for building permits to construct a single-family
residence, but Oakland issued them a notice of violation of the cityAs protected tree ordinance last year. When staff calculated the value of
each tree u from a small plum worth $750 to a mature coast live oak
valued at $95,000 u the total was nearly $1 million.
City staff say trees provide valuable ecosystem services like preventing
fires, holding hillside together against erosion and debris flows,
supporting biodiversity, cleaning the air and improving peopleAs mental
health.
Bernard and Warner requested a public hearing on the matter before the
City Council, an option afforded to people facing fines under the cityAs
tree protection law.
The council was unable to resolve the matter during its first two
attempts in December and April. At its April 14 meeting, a motion to
impose the maximum fine did not pass after councilmembers Fife, Brown
and Houston voted no, and GalloAs absence was recorded as a no vote.
In the run-up to todayAs meeting, environmental advocates flooded the councilmembersA inboxes with messages supporting the fine.
Some spoke at the meeting, saying they were concerned that if the city
didnAt fine Bernard and Warner, it would send a message to developers
and other property owners that they could chop down trees with impunity.
oThis is not simply an environmental issue,o said Arash Daneshzadeh,
director of programs at the Oakland Parks and Recreation Foundation.
oItAs a civic, public safety and equity issue. When violations,
particularly in egregious cases like this, go unpenalized, it sends a
clear message that compliance is optional.o
Before todayAs vote, Bernard made his case to the council, arguing he
had tried in good faith to follow the cityAs process. He also claimed
that some of the 38 trees were already cut down or diseased and dead.
oWe dispute there were 38 trees removed,o he said. oSome trees fell
prior to our purchase, others fell during storms.o
City staff said they gathered extensive evidence of the violations and
included in materials submitted to the council were photographs of the
lot before and after the trees were cut, photos of people cutting trees
on the property and detailed reports by OaklandAs arborist staff. Police
also took reports when they responded to the property while Bernard and
others were cutting trees.
Bernard asked the council to resolve the matter by waiving the fine and allowing him and Warner to replant new trees after they built their
home.
Councilmembers Brown and Fife wanted to find a solution more favorable
to Bernard. Brown called OaklandAs protected tree ordinance ooutdatedo
and said it felt unfair to impose such a large fine on the property
owners for chopping down trees the city would likely have permitted
removal of anyway.
oI believe a truly equitable approach requires us to distinguish between preventable loss and inevitable removal,o she said. She tried to get her colleagues to vote for a roughly $300,000 reduction in the fine.
Fife railed against what she said were racially inequitable policies,
making comparisons with the drug war, mass incarceration and
colonization, while noting that Bernard is Black and his property is
located in an area where people of color were prohibited from living in
the early 20th century. She supported BrownAs proposal.
In the end, a majority of the council embraced the notion that laws
matter and the city shouldnAt be making excuses for people who violate
them.
Ramachandran said Oakland needs oto be crystal clear to anyone who wants
to come into our city and trash our city, and violate our laws, and
think you can get away with it: aYou are going to be fined.o
Similarly, Jenkins said Oakland needs to restore the confidence among
residents that it will uphold its laws. Appealing to Gallo and Houston u
both of whom frequently complain during council meetings about their frustrations with the perception that Oakland is lawless u Jenkins asked
them to support the fine.
oAre we going to enforce the laws? Do they mean anything?o he said.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/california-landowners-who-cut-38-tree s-in-oakland-22245228.php
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2