I would like to see incentives offered to homeowners for growing California native trees on their property. I think imposing penalties for removing protected trees is helpful in a way (although it feels like it creates an antagonistic feeling between homeowners and the city at times). I think it does not do enough to encourage homeowners to intentionally grow native trees. I also think that offering incentives -- not just imposing penalties -- would help make the relationship between the city and homeowners feel less antagonistic when it comes to trees.

I'm specifically interested in seeing native trees be encouraged with incentives -- not the entire list of trees on the city's protected tree list.

Jill Doughtie

We own a lovely home in Bungalow Heaven, but have a problem with a California Live Oak that is causing damage to the house. The tree grows so close to the house that it is literally lifting it up by the foundation, causing cracking on the walls and damage to our original Batchelder fireplace, not to mention growing extensively over our neighbor's roof. I cannot imagine having to pay a fee in order to have this tree removed, which we would never do if it were not interfering with the structural integrity of our home. Laws should exist to protect owners' rights to steward their property effectively. Any law that exists to protect a tree, no matter how lovely, above personal property needs serious revision.

Susan Oberman
Date: 06/08/09

With the rampant development of the past few years, the open space within our borders becomes more critical to preserve whats left of the special character of Pasadena. Of great concern to our neighborhood at this point is the cram down from the telcom folks we see coming in the form of the Wireless and Cable Ordinance. We would like to see greater top down coordination to protect our open spaces and city wide viewshed.

On the west side of Pasadena where we live near the Hillsides site, the views are unmatched, and we would hope that this historic 17 acre parcel can be preserved.

Todd Sandberg
Date: 4/06/2009

I was shocked and horrified by the city's recent action in cutting down mature, healthy, shade- giving trees in the Playhouse District. Even worse, that, that the reason for so doing and replacing them with ugly sticks was in the plan developed many years ago, before we were as aware of the critical need for "green" and the important role trees play in it. That Pasadena, known for the beauty of it's shade-tree lined streets could do this is unthinkable. Yet it happened, and I strongly urge that this be the one and only time; that methods be found to keep the trees and modify their destruction capabilities; and that we eliminate entirely any proposal to replace shade trees with palms and ginkos - trees that neither provide personal benefit of shade in the heat nor any environmental trade-off. In addition, some people think they are just plain ugly.

Sherrill Pinkston
Date: 3/22/2009

Please do not remove the trees on Green St.

Patricia Wickhem
Date: 3/18/2009

The constitution originally read, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property". The word "property" was changed to the word "happiness". Private ownership of property was within the spirit of the Constitution and the city is interfering with private land ownership rights of owners in having ordinances that treat private property as if it were public. There needs to be a distinction between what is private and what is public. Government take over of private citizen rights is inappropriate.
Nobody in their right mind wants to see more and more ordinances, rules, and regulations that turn a city into a policed code enforcing state of being. That is unjoyful interference with the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness for private land owners.

(There is one common sense exception to this and it is in the case where private land owners rent their property as apartments. There should be code enforced housing rights to protect the renters and ensure that owners must provide proper upkeep and maintenance of the property being rented, in return for the rent monies paid to the landlord and his agents.) In the case of home ownership the private trees do not belong to the public. The homeowners must always have the constitutional right to their ownerhsip of the trees, mineral rights, water rights, etc. Therefore the wood element must not be interfered with by the government. If the owner decides to remove trees, the owner has that constitutional freedom for the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is a no brainer. It is not rocket science. In order to create a more beautiful landscape the owner must be allowed to do so. Sometimes the owner wishes to follow the recommendations from the fire department to not have plantings within 30 feet of the home's structure. Other times the owner may not want the foliege stopping up the rain gutters. Or the owner may wish to have a vegetable garden or to plant flowers and ornamentals which would not otherwise grown in dense shade from unwanted trees. There are many factors and home owners must have liberty to make free moral agency choices about their private property. That is not the city's job. It is over stepping. The removal of trees should be done safely without damage to other homes or to the public street. But refusal to issue the permit is outrageous!
Reard systems for creating beauty and healthy oxygen rich air would work better than the punitive control freak systems that stiffle individual creativity and entrepreneuralship of the U.S. citizenry. The whole approach is wrong.

If someone wants to be a tree hugger, let that person own their own tree. The principle is in the 10 commandments to not lust after what belongs to thy neighbor, and that includes thy neighbors property rights with thy neighbor's trees. Whose tree is it? It is thy neighbor's! It is not the city's. It is not the neighborhood's. It is not the public's. It is thy neighbor's. Singular privacy ownership of right. There is a spiritual principle of ethics involved in this principle upon which the U.S. Constitution was founded. It is amoral to steal the property rights of an individual owner.
We are talking trees not human slavery or women's suffrage here. Trees are important, but they are a different life species than human. There needs to be a differentiation. Those who think trees are people should have more regard for animals. Ghandi said that you can judge the morale character of a nation by the way it treats its animals. So the birds and the bees that live in trees are not of more importance than the downer cows and animals being tortured in the factory farms. Lets get real here about mammals being a higher life form than ticks in trees. Also the healthy mature people being removed from the city are being treated like animals when they are human and we are our brother's keeper on that one.

A reward system for creating beauty is always a higher calibre approach than punishment. If we are talking carrot or stick mentality of the city, lets use carrots not sticks. It's the old addage of catching more flies with honey than with vinegar. Private land owners should be inspired to relandship their yards by seeing an excellent and beautiful example set by the city. The gorgeous City Hall does set that example and it is a thousand times more beautiful and life enhancing than the old growth that was removed ever was. The number of photographers and those enthralled with the beauty testify to the wise choice of the city in that regard. Cudos for city hall. It's a shame the planners did not put a restroom facility on the 2nd floor near to where the town meetings occur. Next time round.

Regarding the trees on Colorado Boulevard which is the Rose Parade route, out of courtesy for the millions of viewers around the world, the Rose Parade floats are what determined that the shade trees should be replaced with ginkos and palm trees to accommodate the floasts that had a hard time navigting the shade trees when the floats where much larger and wider. Also the millions who come to see the parade and line the boulevard should not have their bleacher grandstand or street standing views obstructed by shade trees. The palm trees that have been part of the heritage of the Rose Parade since the first parade were replaced by new palms once already in the history of this city. So those tree huggers who don't like to hug palm trees need to take the larger view of what the whole world expects to see when they come to sunny southern CA. The 40,000 residents of the central business district are 1/3 of the city and you don't hear them whining about the removal of the shade trees down Colorado Blvd. That is because the Playhouse district residents can walk down Green street if they want to take a walk under shade trees and everybody knows that the Target shoppers park in a covered parking lot and enter the store from the rear.
So those residents who complain about the neighborhood they are not representing can go hug the trees in your own neighborhood and stop stopping the beautification of our central district neighborhood. We hug our ginko and palm trees and it would be discrimination against us to disallow the planting of the new trees that the city has already approved of.

A woman in labor being delivered does not get her knees held shut. The water bag of this baby has already broken. The old shade trees have already been removed as approved of by the city's Colorado Boulevard parade route plan. Causing a stillbirth of this project is wrong. It is amoral. One does not retain the pregnancy all the way to term, to the end of the third trimester when the baby is coming and try to abort. Abortion at this late stage of the game is tantamount to holding the knees together so the baby would be stillborn, and that is the spirit of murder, because the baby is full term.

So it is with the playhouse district's delivery of the new trees this spring. You do not stop such progress in the birthing phase. It would be amoral since the water bag has broke and the old trees have been removed to not finish the birthing. The city needs to finish what it began. Once the baby is born you can wonder all the could have, would have, should haves. This is a legal matter that the Playhouse Business District can take up with attorney representation if the discrimination against them continues because they would have every legal right to sue the city of forcing a stillbirth. You get the analogy here. The principle is that a man is only as good as his word and they were given the word of the mayor and city council. It's too late to have an abortion, the water bag has broke.

Somethings things just have to be broken down to common sense decency and respect for other people's privacy rights. Each neighborhood has its own concerns and should stick primarily to its own neighborhood's issues. In the matter of Pasadena's street trees people from other cities really don't get a vote. And it is the 40,000 residents of the central district neighborhood who haven't complained but those who have spoken have spoken in favor of finishing up and planting the new palms.
In the future when public street trees need to be replaced perhaps on streets that do not host the Rose Parade floats, the city of San Francisco would be a good model to follow. The San Francisco chronicle reads, "The city of of San Francisco is expected to pass a pioneering food-policy program this year aimed at creating a regional Bay Area "foodshed"...dozens of ideas have been considered, from growing fruit trees on streets to...with a goal of providing most of San Francisco's food from within a 200-mile radius of the city..."

Nancy Nelson
Date: 3/17/2009

1) I find unreasonable to charge City residents (none development case) even a minimal fee for a permit to remove a diseased or severely declining tree.
A resident experiences a loss of a tree and carries cost for tree's removal. Fee should be waived if application is accompanied by appropriate documentation completed by certified tree experts.

2) On-Site Tree Retention. Trees adequately protected during construction exhibit minimal or no adverse impact. New ordinance shall stipulate a requirement for developers to employ arborist to advice and oversee work within trees' protected zone; and submit periodical reports to City staff.

Teresa Proscewicz
Date: 3/06/2009

I am a big supporter of the Pasadena Tree Ptrotection Ordinance (TPO). While it has saved some trees that would have been destroyed -- especially the very large native and specimen trees -- it has proven ineffective overall in keeping Pasadena a tree city. Many trees in my neighborhood have been removed. Either they weren't protected or they did not yet meet the size requirements for protection. It's hard to believe a less than 15 " DBH tree can be removed. That is a large tree! Many neighbors, once aware that a tree will someday be protected, remove the tree before it can grow to protected size.

I recommend that more tree species become protected and at a much smaller diameter. A 5" tree is a beautiful tree! What good is it to force an owner to plant a tree knowing it will be pruned to death before it can ever be protected. Pasadena trees need to be allowed to grow. Their protection should be mandated much earlier than the present TPO allows. Thank you.

Jon Dudley
Date: 1/23/2009

In a recent issue of West Pasadena Residents' Assoc. "News", the topic of the Tree Protection Ordinance was discussed and gave this site as a place to post comments. I became more interested when I learned that there are several species of trees protected by the City, including Fraxinus oxycarpa. On the north side of Glenarm, just east of Pasadena Avenue three houses in is a very large and beautiful ash tree. The owners of this tree are taking care to preserve it and extend its life. Both I and the owners do not know the variety. Is this a F. oxycarpa tree or some other variety? I would love to see other such ashes planted more in our City, whatever the variety.

John Harper
Date: 1/22/2009

Everytime I drive past city hall and see the emptiness where beautiful trees were, I want to cry. I think it is very unfair of the city to impose so many limitations on home owners, charging large permit costs to remove even a small tree that is damaging plumbing, then they turn around and rip out old beautiful trees in public areas. New buildings go up in the downtown area, the building wall touches the edge of the sidewalk, and NO LANDSCAPE space at all! I have watched as Pasadena loses more and more trees and landscaping, and builds larger and larger buildings with no regard to greenspace. It seems the city planners want a little LA instead of the gracious city this used to be. Our streets are glutted with traffic, our trees are ripped out to build condos, you've destroyed our lovely small town feel in the midst of a large city.

Janet Bordeaux
Date: 12/15/2008

While Pasadena's tree ordinance offers some protection on paper, its effectiveness is not what it could be. As another commenter has stated, public education needs to be a part of the City's program. Also, a specific rule against the topping of trees (especially conifers) may be a useful addition. The City of San Marino has such a rule, and some consultation regarding the effectiveness of that rule (or ordinance) in San Marino would be advisable.

Paul Martin
Date: 12/2/2008

RE Arroyo tree overload of Palms ... Concerned with lack of aesthetic planning, placement, blending/crowding with existing trees, blatant disregard for business signage in relation to tree placement, and overall garish result of this waste of money. Why not consider useful use of this $ like more left turn arrows in Pasadena? Less water waste to water all of these trees,etc ...Someone got a nice contract to sell all these trees... very questionable spending versus the visual benefit!!

Melissa McCurry
Date: 11/24/2008

I support the preservation efforts for trees throughout the city. Yes they are sometimes in the way..but while construction takes a few months, trees can take decades to grow. Buildings are short lived, nature is not, and it must be protected at all cost.

I urge the city of Pasadena to consider making parts of Pasadena and Old Town Pasadena CAR FREE.

Charles Zanecki
Date: 11/23/2008

I appreciate all that is done to beautify our streets, keep our air fresh, and attract wildlife. I just have one suggestion, please do not plant anymore Chinese Elm trees. I have lived on Linda Vista Ave. for twenty years. Ten years ago I developed an allergy to these trees, for which there is no cure. During the months of September and October there are days when I can't even leave my house and for the past two years rely on an inhaler daily to prevent asthma attacks. I love my area and the entire city of Pasadena and would hate to have to leave. I have met many people from all parts of the city who suffer from this same allergy.

Kim Gonzalez
11/16/2008

We strongly implore Pasadena's Planning Department to renew the city's 2002 tree protection ordinance. Speaking not only as guardians of one of the most beautiful California coastal oaks in the Arroyo area, we are surprised that the city would even consider relaxing the regulations that preserve our trees and the environmental benefits they provide. Little or no regulation will encourage more and more "mansionization" on residential lots and invite commercial developers to build to the edges of property lines making for sterile architecture and dark, enclosing sidewalks that discourage evening walks around our beautiful city. Please, please protect our trees.

Toni and Rod Burgoyne
11/16/2008

If there is currently protection afforded the very tall variety of palm trees as found in the No. Pasadena Heights area I suggest removing protection as well as the trees themselves. I can think of no benefits they provide. Their liabilities include vermin homes and a real danger to people, animals and property from falling fronds with sharp teeth on the edges. If these trees can be gradually phased out and replaced with something more native in appearance and more beneficial such as with shade our city would be improved.

Michael Logan
Date: 11/10/2008

I definitely support the tree protection ordinance, but believe that in some cases landowners should be allowed to remove trees, for example if it would hinder major construction projects. In such case, it would be fair to ask the landowner to fund the planting of a new tree at another location.

Besides, I believe that there is a lot of room or improvement in Pasadena, as asphalt and congestion dominate the landscape as far as I can see: Why not following Santa-Monica's example and make Old Town Pasadena car free? Not only are cars an eyesore, they are just idling away in traffic. The 4 block section of Colorado Blvd should in my opinion be shut off to traffic with the exception of Fair Oaks, DeLacey and Raymond Ave. The freed up space could be planted with decorative trees etc..

Nicolas Lehotzky
Date: 11/9/2008

The regulations for trimming and/or removal of protected species on PRIVATE PROPERTY are burdensome to homeowners, especially the elderly and/or low-income residents. Great oaks from little acorns grow, and when they take root and overtake private property (especially property not visible from the street) they actually become a nuisance and danger to property owners. Please seriously consider lifting the ban on removal of protected species on private property. Thank you.

Barbara Ower
Date: 11/9/2008

Polytechnic School supports preservation of natural resources, including trees. An institution, from time-to-time, needs to relocate structures, redesign courtyards, or build new structures to address mission-critical objectives and to remain competitive in the marketplace. Trees live a long time. We encourage an approach and an ordinance that considers equally the protection of trees and the protection of an institution's need for change over the long period of time typically associated with tree life.

Name: Keith Huyssoon for Polytechnic School
Date: 10/3/2008

One of Pasadena's distinguishing characteristics is it's lovely shaded streets, homes landscaped and shaded by older well-established trees of different varieties. The trees have nurtured a very healthy and diverse population of birds and have given us, the residents, much needed shelter from uncharacteristic heat waves. However, except for the DWP Pasadena newsletter, there has been minimal attempts to educate the public about the importance of Pasadena's trees and Pasadena's heritage as a city of trees. There must be more to foment the appreciation of trees in both English and Spanish. It is evident that there is a clash in the aesthetic of homes landscaped with trees and those that one witnesses everyday, that are being cut-down, especially above the 210 Freeway in the north central area of Pasadena. The tree ordinance needs to be enforced with exceptions made on occasion where there is damage to plumbing and homes. But a mandate for more widespread education must also be part of the same consideration. Thank you.

Name:Unknown
Date: 10/2/2008