4 ms·

Local to the area and yes, there are a lot of NIMBYs, however this is not the best case to illustrate the battle for affordable and accessible housing. This is

Local to the area and yes, there are a lot of NIMBYs, however this is not the best case to illustrate the battle for affordable and accessible housing. This is a power couple wanting to butcher their slope (19 heritage trees) to build a mansion unbefitting of the neighborhood, and then trying to use the HDP law to force the county to let them do it, despite obviously not fitting the spirit of the law.

marincounty 4y ago
wahern 4y ago
19 trees "'protected' or 'heritage'". A "protected" tree is basically any native tree over 6-10 inches in diameter (i.e. more than a few years old), and a "heritage" tree is any of the same but over 18-30 inches (depending on species). See https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT22DECO_ARTVIIIDECODE_CH22.130DE_22.130.030DESPTEPH https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal... These are very broad classifications that mostly serve to provide pretext for rejecting projects or exacting fees. In San Francisco a protected tree is any tree with a diameter of 15" or more (specifically, a circumference of 48" or more). It'll cost you upwards of $500 in mandatory permits and fees alone to remove any (and each) such tree, even if it's a foregone conclusion that it needs to be removed. And if you remove it without spending the money and time on the permit, you'll face thousands of dollars in fines. The whole system is fscked up. Whether it was proper, legal, or otherwise for that "mansion" to be built, I have no opinion. But the existing regulations and permitting systems in California are wholly ridiculous; clearly, directly, and unequivocally responsible for an immense amount of social problems, including social inequities in this state; and outside a court of law, and without more context, deserve little deference regarding legitimacy and efficacy. In fact, the system has the overall effect of injuring rule of law by making it difficult, not to mention often times economically infeasible, to obey the letter of the law. It turns the community into scofflaws. If the law and law-abiding community is the only thing protecting a resource, then it's of paramount importance to maintain the legitimacy of and respect for the law, even if that means sometimes making sacrifices and compromises regarding what you would like to accomplish with the law.
- zibby8 4y ago
  Given that a tree with a 48 in circumference is several decades old, if not over 100 years old, it seems sensible that there would be some amount of process if you want to cut one down. You can’t just run out to the store and replace it. Old trees add huge amounts of charm to a neighborhood and there one thing you can’t buy to augment a specific piece of land.
  - wahern 4y ago
    48" in circumference, not diameter. The [edit: South] SF Municipal Code defines "protected tree" by circumference, whereas the Marin County Code defines it by diameter. To emphasize the similarity between the codes I cited to 15" in diameter, but then to be precise quoted 48" circumference in the parenthetical. Also, I just realized that I was quoting from the South San Francisco Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_13-chapter_13_30-13_30_020 https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/muni... Edit: SF Code is less strict than South SF or Marin. SF has "significant" and "landmark" trees. The former is 12" diameter or greater and within 10 feet of a public right of way. The latter is by individual designation only, AFAICT. See https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-4204 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... and https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-4237 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...
    - zibby8 4y ago
      Sorry, that was a typo on my part. I meant circumference not diameter. A tree with a 48 in. diameter would be many hundred years old.
      - wahern 4y ago
        Different tree species have different growth factors. Tree species planted for shade or greening will tend to be selected for fast growth rates (i.e. low growth factors). Moreover, because of the relatively favorable environment--e.g. good sun, low competition, occasional maintenance--they'll tend to grow faster than average for their species. 48" circumference / 15" diameter could be 15-20 years old, if not younger, for some commonly planted trees. The horrible strawberry tree planted at my curb by the previous homeowner couldn't be much older than about 15 years (they bought the house circa 2007), and it's already close to that diameter even though it's categorized as a slow grower. The trunk splits just above chest height, giving it an advantage by that metric relative to how it grows in the wild, but that probably wasn't an accident. (I couldn't find a proper growth factor number, perhaps because the growth rate of the trunk isn't uniform through its life?) It's a common tree in San Francisco as it is (or at least was) a favorite of the Friends of the Urban Forest, but it creates too much detritus and is now disfavored by the city. Fast growing species of maple and cottonwood are especially common out in the suburbs.
zbrozek 4y ago
The law specifies its intent quite clearly. The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. It looks like it's intended to allow for the construction of everything, not just affordable and accessible housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65589.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
anonymousiam 4y ago
It is debatable, but this looks a lot like a Fifth Amendment issue to me. They were granted the right to clear the trees, but the neighbors objected to the size of their proposed dwelling and the commission changed their minds and denied the permit. So they own the property, but their government has denied them the use of it. ..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/16-just-compensation.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/16-just-... "A taking can come in two forms. The taking may be physical, which means that the government literally takes the property from its owner). Or the taking may be constructive (also called a regulatory taking), which means that the government restricts the owner's rights so much that the governmental action becomes the functional equivalent of a physical seizure. "

marincounty 4y ago

wahern 4y ago

19 trees "'protected' or 'heritage'". A "protected" tree is basically any native tree over 6-10 inches in diameter (i.e. more than a few years old), and a "heritage" tree is any of the same but over 18-30 inches (depending on species). See https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT22DECO_ARTVIIIDECODE_CH22.130DE_22.130.030DESPTEPH https://library.municode.com/ca/marin_county/codes/municipal... These are very broad classifications that mostly serve to provide pretext for rejecting projects or exacting fees. In San Francisco a protected tree is any tree with a diameter of 15" or more (specifically, a circumference of 48" or more). It'll cost you upwards of $500 in mandatory permits and fees alone to remove any (and each) such tree, even if it's a foregone conclusion that it needs to be removed. And if you remove it without spending the money and time on the permit, you'll face thousands of dollars in fines. The whole system is fscked up. Whether it was proper, legal, or otherwise for that "mansion" to be built, I have no opinion. But the existing regulations and permitting systems in California are wholly ridiculous; clearly, directly, and unequivocally responsible for an immense amount of social problems, including social inequities in this state; and outside a court of law, and without more context, deserve little deference regarding legitimacy and efficacy. In fact, the system has the overall effect of injuring rule of law by making it difficult, not to mention often times economically infeasible, to obey the letter of the law. It turns the community into scofflaws. If the law and law-abiding community is the only thing protecting a resource, then it's of paramount importance to maintain the legitimacy of and respect for the law, even if that means sometimes making sacrifices and compromises regarding what you would like to accomplish with the law.

zibby8 4y ago
Given that a tree with a 48 in circumference is several decades old, if not over 100 years old, it seems sensible that there would be some amount of process if you want to cut one down. You can’t just run out to the store and replace it. Old trees add huge amounts of charm to a neighborhood and there one thing you can’t buy to augment a specific piece of land.
- wahern 4y ago
  48" in circumference, not diameter. The [edit: South] SF Municipal Code defines "protected tree" by circumference, whereas the Marin County Code defines it by diameter. To emphasize the similarity between the codes I cited to 15" in diameter, but then to be precise quoted 48" circumference in the parenthetical. Also, I just realized that I was quoting from the South San Francisco Code. https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_13-chapter_13_30-13_30_020 https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/muni... Edit: SF Code is less strict than South SF or Marin. SF has "significant" and "landmark" trees. The former is 12" diameter or greater and within 10 feet of a public right of way. The latter is by individual designation only, AFAICT. See https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-4204 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s... and https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_publicworks/0-0-0-4237 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/s...
  - zibby8 4y ago
    Sorry, that was a typo on my part. I meant circumference not diameter. A tree with a 48 in. diameter would be many hundred years old.
    - wahern 4y ago
      Different tree species have different growth factors. Tree species planted for shade or greening will tend to be selected for fast growth rates (i.e. low growth factors). Moreover, because of the relatively favorable environment--e.g. good sun, low competition, occasional maintenance--they'll tend to grow faster than average for their species. 48" circumference / 15" diameter could be 15-20 years old, if not younger, for some commonly planted trees. The horrible strawberry tree planted at my curb by the previous homeowner couldn't be much older than about 15 years (they bought the house circa 2007), and it's already close to that diameter even though it's categorized as a slow grower. The trunk splits just above chest height, giving it an advantage by that metric relative to how it grows in the wild, but that probably wasn't an accident. (I couldn't find a proper growth factor number, perhaps because the growth rate of the trunk isn't uniform through its life?) It's a common tree in San Francisco as it is (or at least was) a favorite of the Friends of the Urban Forest, but it creates too much detritus and is now disfavored by the city. Fast growing species of maple and cottonwood are especially common out in the suburbs.

zbrozek 4y ago

The law specifies its intent quite clearly. The Legislature’s intent in enacting this section in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters. That intent has not been fulfilled. It looks like it's intended to allow for the construction of everything, not just affordable and accessible housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65589.5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

anonymousiam 4y ago

It is debatable, but this looks a lot like a Fifth Amendment issue to me. They were granted the right to clear the trees, but the neighbors objected to the size of their proposed dwelling and the commission changed their minds and denied the permit. So they own the property, but their government has denied them the use of it. ..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/16-just-compensation.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-05/16-just-... "A taking can come in two forms. The taking may be physical, which means that the government literally takes the property from its owner). Or the taking may be constructive (also called a regulatory taking), which means that the government restricts the owner's rights so much that the governmental action becomes the functional equivalent of a physical seizure. "