Hi Mayor and City Council Members. This is request to take action on implementing an ordinance to limit the height of trees in certain zones or residential areas within the City. Currently, we have a neighbor that has 9 coastal redwood trees that are approximately each 100 feet tall are considered a public nuisance. (See sections 8.04.100, especially subsection (P), 8.100.580, 8.100.650, and 17.612.010.) The neighbor's trees are way to tall and need to be taken down period. It's not a matter of the owner having the right to grow and keep growing such a large specimen - it's way beyond what the neighbor wants. These trees are a public nuisance and a threat to public safety both life and property. Every decent arborist, master gardener, and even a lay person know and understand that coastal redwoods do not belong here, because the enormous amount of water they take to maintain survival. But not only the water content, but the incredible damage they cause. The neighbor's trees have caused nearly $3,000 dollars worth of damage to our home with this recent storm. But over the years we have constantly (daily and weekly) cleaned the roof, gutters and our property of tree limbs, pine needle and other debris, and not to mention previous years damage to our home and property.
Our other neighbor had 5 coastal redwoods about 80 feet high and 2 of them came down - 1 on the side neighbor's house and their yard, along with 2 other neighbor's yards with this last huge storm. They smartly took down the other 3.
This is a huge problem and I need the City to enforce the local ordinances as described above against the neighbor as a public nuisance, which would be a violation of the ordinances of at least $250 but no more than $25,000 per day. Please don't take a lazy and not my problem approach, because this is serious public safety issue.
Additionally, after this last series of storms with the wind created damage to our property, along with other individual's property I am hopeful that the City of Sac, along with the Urban Forestry Department, City Attorney's office, and other stakeholders will use this storm event, which we have been having the last 4 winters (60-70mph wind gusts), as a lesson to make changes and modernize the local ordinances to reflect our changing times. Specifically, the City needs to ban the growth of any tree over 30 feet tall in certain residential zoned areas. And existing trees over this length there would be a 1 to 3 year process of allowing the home owner to take down the tree. Cities such as Antioch, Fresno, and Los Angeles have tree limit ordinances in place.
I don't need to tell you or show you pictures of the carnage, I am sure you have seen them. This type of damage is going to be the new normal, and this is your/our chance to do something about it so the risk, damage, and cost will be mitigated or non-existent. Because when there is damage like this to life and property it has a ripple affect which affect many different people, businesses and our way of life, which includes financial impact. Not only the immediate money being spent by citizens with fallen trees on their houses, cars, and property, but the insurance costs that will increase as a result of poor planning by the City and Urban Forestry, by allowing such large trees to continue to grow or be grown at such an incredible height even thought most residential, suburban or urban homes are within feet of these monstrous trees. If the City of Trees wants to have trees plant them and let them grown in parks and other non-residential areas, but not in neighborhoods.
Please direct City Staff to contact me through this email and/or by phone at (916) 832-7203 to discuss and determine how we can work together on this important public safety issue to ensure we amend the local ordinances and come up with solutions to help mitigate or stop monumental life and property damage.
I just moved from Southern California on January 21, 2023 to 1928 15th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811. As I was unpacking I was forced to evacuate my home for a couple of hours as a result of a giant fire next door at 1916 15th Street. I understand that this is the third or fourth fire at this long abandoned Chinese Gospel Mission in a relatively short time span and that it has caused massive damages on more than one occasion to my neighbor's home at 1924 15th Street.
The shell of the former structure at 1916 15th Street, with more combustible materials, asbestos, mold, toxic substances, and homeless people occupying the property despite fencing around it, continues to be unsafe. It not only endangers the health, safety and lives of the public at large and adjacent homeowners and their families, but also those of Fire Department personnel and City inspectors.
Any and all prior civil citations for public nuisance including, but not limited to administrative penalties, monthly monitoring fees, assessments for Fire Department costs, etc., have been clearly insufficient to force the property owner to take any action. It is abundantly clear that any demolition and removal of debris can only be accomplished by the City of Sacramento because any order to the owner to do so would be futile in light of his repeated acts of obstinacy and non-compliance thereby just lengthening the abatement process indefinitely.
However, a cheaper and quicker alternative exists in the form of utilizing a Health & Safety Receivership. This property should be exempt from the 18 months compliance period following the issuance of any Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish (N&O) because they property continues to be immediately dangerous and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that either (1) the City immediately issue an order that the subject property be demolished and secured at City expense or (2) that the City Attorney be consulted for an emergency court filing for a Health and Safety Receivership.
At the very least, the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board should be directed to hold an emergency hearing for the sole purpose of discussing and taking action regarding this worst and costly offending property.
I'm a resident of Curtis Park, and live down the street from the Sierra II park, one that has recently been revisited by the City due to it's unofficial off-leash dog park. I'm not interested in the topic because I'm a dog owner (I'm not), or even because my kid loves to go there to play with the dogs (she does). What interests me about the dog park debate is the fact that it is one of the few third places that remain intact in my community, and I see the powerful community building that goes on there on a near-continuous basis. A "third place" refers to a location that is neither home nor work, but a place where people can gather, socialize, and build a sense of community. The dog park at Sierra II is an ideal third place for dog owners (and even some nondog-owners), as it provides a space for multiple generations from all economic levels to come together to socialize. Research indicates that this impact is even more valuable for the elderly in our communities, as third places are linked to lower levels of loneliness and social isolation, something we are in desperate need of in the post-COVID world. Additionally, the foot traffic to and from the dog park leads to healthier community and more security for the neighborhood. Research conducted by the University of Western Australia found that neighborhoods that has more active dog walkers were healthier, but also had higher perceptions of safety and community connection.
Removing the dog park from Sierra II would be a horrible loss for our community, and I strongly encourage the Council to find a way to fund the necessary improvements to the park to make it suitable for this use. We don't all need to be dog owners to see the clear benefits this space has for everyone in the community.
Hi Mayor and City Council Members. This is request to take action on implementing an ordinance to limit the height of trees in certain zones or residential areas within the City. Currently, we have a neighbor that has 9 coastal redwood trees that are approximately each 100 feet tall are considered a public nuisance. (See sections 8.04.100, especially subsection (P), 8.100.580, 8.100.650, and 17.612.010.) The neighbor's trees are way to tall and need to be taken down period. It's not a matter of the owner having the right to grow and keep growing such a large specimen - it's way beyond what the neighbor wants. These trees are a public nuisance and a threat to public safety both life and property. Every decent arborist, master gardener, and even a lay person know and understand that coastal redwoods do not belong here, because the enormous amount of water they take to maintain survival. But not only the water content, but the incredible damage they cause. The neighbor's trees have caused nearly $3,000 dollars worth of damage to our home with this recent storm. But over the years we have constantly (daily and weekly) cleaned the roof, gutters and our property of tree limbs, pine needle and other debris, and not to mention previous years damage to our home and property.
Our other neighbor had 5 coastal redwoods about 80 feet high and 2 of them came down - 1 on the side neighbor's house and their yard, along with 2 other neighbor's yards with this last huge storm. They smartly took down the other 3.
This is a huge problem and I need the City to enforce the local ordinances as described above against the neighbor as a public nuisance, which would be a violation of the ordinances of at least $250 but no more than $25,000 per day. Please don't take a lazy and not my problem approach, because this is serious public safety issue.
Additionally, after this last series of storms with the wind created damage to our property, along with other individual's property I am hopeful that the City of Sac, along with the Urban Forestry Department, City Attorney's office, and other stakeholders will use this storm event, which we have been having the last 4 winters (60-70mph wind gusts), as a lesson to make changes and modernize the local ordinances to reflect our changing times. Specifically, the City needs to ban the growth of any tree over 30 feet tall in certain residential zoned areas. And existing trees over this length there would be a 1 to 3 year process of allowing the home owner to take down the tree. Cities such as Antioch, Fresno, and Los Angeles have tree limit ordinances in place.
I don't need to tell you or show you pictures of the carnage, I am sure you have seen them. This type of damage is going to be the new normal, and this is your/our chance to do something about it so the risk, damage, and cost will be mitigated or non-existent. Because when there is damage like this to life and property it has a ripple affect which affect many different people, businesses and our way of life, which includes financial impact. Not only the immediate money being spent by citizens with fallen trees on their houses, cars, and property, but the insurance costs that will increase as a result of poor planning by the City and Urban Forestry, by allowing such large trees to continue to grow or be grown at such an incredible height even thought most residential, suburban or urban homes are within feet of these monstrous trees. If the City of Trees wants to have trees plant them and let them grown in parks and other non-residential areas, but not in neighborhoods.
Please direct City Staff to contact me through this email and/or by phone at (916) 832-7203 to discuss and determine how we can work together on this important public safety issue to ensure we amend the local ordinances and come up with solutions to help mitigate or stop monumental life and property damage.
Thanks Scott
I just moved from Southern California on January 21, 2023 to 1928 15th Street, Sacramento, CA 95811. As I was unpacking I was forced to evacuate my home for a couple of hours as a result of a giant fire next door at 1916 15th Street. I understand that this is the third or fourth fire at this long abandoned Chinese Gospel Mission in a relatively short time span and that it has caused massive damages on more than one occasion to my neighbor's home at 1924 15th Street.
The shell of the former structure at 1916 15th Street, with more combustible materials, asbestos, mold, toxic substances, and homeless people occupying the property despite fencing around it, continues to be unsafe. It not only endangers the health, safety and lives of the public at large and adjacent homeowners and their families, but also those of Fire Department personnel and City inspectors.
Any and all prior civil citations for public nuisance including, but not limited to administrative penalties, monthly monitoring fees, assessments for Fire Department costs, etc., have been clearly insufficient to force the property owner to take any action. It is abundantly clear that any demolition and removal of debris can only be accomplished by the City of Sacramento because any order to the owner to do so would be futile in light of his repeated acts of obstinacy and non-compliance thereby just lengthening the abatement process indefinitely.
However, a cheaper and quicker alternative exists in the form of utilizing a Health & Safety Receivership. This property should be exempt from the 18 months compliance period following the issuance of any Notice and Order to Repair or Demolish (N&O) because they property continues to be immediately dangerous and of such a nature that the health and safety of residents or the public is substantially endangered.
Therefore, it is respectfully requested that either (1) the City immediately issue an order that the subject property be demolished and secured at City expense or (2) that the City Attorney be consulted for an emergency court filing for a Health and Safety Receivership.
At the very least, the Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board should be directed to hold an emergency hearing for the sole purpose of discussing and taking action regarding this worst and costly offending property.
Kind regards,
Mark Henderson
I'm a resident of Curtis Park, and live down the street from the Sierra II park, one that has recently been revisited by the City due to it's unofficial off-leash dog park. I'm not interested in the topic because I'm a dog owner (I'm not), or even because my kid loves to go there to play with the dogs (she does). What interests me about the dog park debate is the fact that it is one of the few third places that remain intact in my community, and I see the powerful community building that goes on there on a near-continuous basis. A "third place" refers to a location that is neither home nor work, but a place where people can gather, socialize, and build a sense of community. The dog park at Sierra II is an ideal third place for dog owners (and even some nondog-owners), as it provides a space for multiple generations from all economic levels to come together to socialize. Research indicates that this impact is even more valuable for the elderly in our communities, as third places are linked to lower levels of loneliness and social isolation, something we are in desperate need of in the post-COVID world. Additionally, the foot traffic to and from the dog park leads to healthier community and more security for the neighborhood. Research conducted by the University of Western Australia found that neighborhoods that has more active dog walkers were healthier, but also had higher perceptions of safety and community connection.
Removing the dog park from Sierra II would be a horrible loss for our community, and I strongly encourage the Council to find a way to fund the necessary improvements to the park to make it suitable for this use. We don't all need to be dog owners to see the clear benefits this space has for everyone in the community.