Thank you to the 5 on city council who supported the tree ordinance.

Julie Lythcott-Haims tried to deny she wrote in her own recent newsletter that the tree ordinance -
“…could be pitched as housing vs the environment…”.

Unlike the image she tries to project, JLH sows needless decisiveness while trying to mislead us about her attitude.
But it didn’t work.

It’s not a versus. Trees and housing do and will co-exist.

Another thank you to the 5 who supported the tree ordinance which required a lot of work and thought and attention to detail -- something that JHL typically avoids. You can count on her to push for more housing and higher density as required by her deep-pocketed backers, most of whom are not even Palo Alto residents or individuals.

We deserve better leadership than one-trick ponies.

The reporter here seems to imply that there were more than 2 public speakers who were against this item. This item was overwhelmingly supported by speakers. Additionally, Leah Russin never even applied for a tree removal permit! She was told the tree was Protected under the new ordinance and had 2 private arborists examine the tree. They did not recommend removal. She never applied to remove it. When the tree came down during the unprecedented storms, she put the blame on the City.

I’d also like to think the five who supported the tree ordinance. Replacing one grand tree with two or three saplings is not equivalent in terms of the massive amount of carbon capture that the original tree represents. Nor is it equivalent, in terms of wildlife benefit.

Trees add so much to the quality of life. Remember that terrible "clear cutting" on California Ave. and how bare and soulless the street looked afterward.

We are so fortunate to have beautiful trees in the community, and must do all we can to protect them.

I'm in the hills and we don't have the type of limits Palo Alto has for tree removal except for oaks. Some of the trees here grow completely out of control. In the urban areas of Palo Alto I can understand the desire to protect trees but up in the hills, some of the trees grow like crazy and new ones are sprouting up all the time.

They grow into power lines, water mains, they become fire and fall hazards. Many of the trees can't be seen by anyone except the home owner themselves. If you look at images and maps of the area a hundred years ago, there were none of these trees in most of the area. For example, take a walk around Arastradero Preserve, that's what it looked like. Rancho San Antonio has more tress but the areas with homes have the most trees because they are not here naturally.

The Eucalyptus are really problematic because they will grow multiple feet in a year until they are huge, they are big fire risks and constantly shedding. There needs to be a good balance between reasonable tree removal and the desire to protect all trees. In the hills, there are a number of areas with just too many trees as it is and they aren't here naturally. I don't think more trees need to be on a protected list and think homeowners who want to remove trees should be given more options to do so when they aren't natural to the area.