Naturally Regenerating Redwood?

[jchill]

Does anyone know if an arborist can determine with some certainty whether a California Redwood was planted by an individual or if it was a naturally regenerated tree? The Redwood in question is about 8 years old now and has grown to about 25 feet in height and is located in the Oakland Hills where fire wiped everything out in 1991.

Thanks.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

For what purpose?

I suppose a genetic test could determine if it were from local seed or from a different area. there are regional differences.

A root zone excavation could tell if it were vegetativly reproduced, ie suckerd from root or stump. One may even be able to tell if it were seed grown naturally by the nature of the roots. it would depend on how old the transplant was.

 

[jchill]

Thanks for the reply. The purpose is to determine if it is protected via the local view ordinances. If it was naturally regenerated, then it is not subject to view protection ordinances. My neighbors and I are are having problems with the neighbor downslope from us because he planted several redwoods that are now reaching a heighth where sweeping views of the SF bay are blocked. The properties were acquired before the trees were planted and the views have a significant effect on the value of the properties. The downslope neighbor claims the trees grew back by themselves, but everyone else saw him plant them, and they think he did it out of spite. It is an unfortunate situation.

 

[TREETX]

JPS gave a good suggestion, but advice or testimony is a get what you pay for thing. If this is headed legal, get a CONSULTING arborist. Check with the ASCA to find one locally.

Research trees and the law. You are not the first to be in this boat.

.02

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

Yes, an RCA and a lawyer familiar in this type of property law.

Maybe lobbying the municipality to allow easment of veiw in a reasonable fashion that would not include topping or clearcut methods, or removal and replanting with stock that will not grow to block specificly deffined views.

I for one am not a proponet of maintaining "sweeping veiws" but working to maintain specific lines of sight from specific points of view, eg a seating arrangement by a picturewindow so that a bridge or lighthouse can be seen through the neighbors trees.

Is it reasonable for one citizen to have to maintain his property in a certain way, that has no bearing on the safety or aethetics of that property, just because it would increase the resale value of adjacent land?

 

[jchill]

JPS, I understand your comment regarding reasonable "sweeping views", but a little more info might clarify this particular situation. The redwood I am inquiring about is only one, albeit the largest, of about 15 that the downslope neighbor has planted BEHIND HIS HOUSE (sorry for the caps...). He did not plant ANY in front of his house and thus has an unobstructed view himself. At some point, if all the redwoods continue to grow unabated, then there will be no view at all remaining for the upslope properties.

In regards to a citizen maintaining his property in a certain way for the benefit of adjacent properties, I think the view ordinance is in place to protect the adjacent property's value. The views of a piece of property have a direct effect on that value. For example, if someone purchases a house for $2M with stunning views, and then 10 years later the views are obstructed, that homeowner may see a significant drop in the value of his property. This loss may, and in many cases should, be recoverable in civil courts.

From my perspective, we all live as neighbors; why are we not acting neighborly? What does that say about a person who goes out and plants trees with the specific purpose of sticking it to others? Please note that I am the only upslope neighbor (out of 5 upslope properties) that actually gets along with the downslope neighbor, but I am still very concerned.

Thanks for your suggestions. I appreciate them very much and if you have any more, please share them with me.

 

[John Paul Sanborn]

In this buisness we run into the fueding neighbors all the time (I did get the part where you get a long). We all have stories about how whacky it can get.

To get back to your question. Since you have a view easment, or right of way, that proscribes planting tall trees that will disrupt the view, it seems that that should allow you to get acess to determine if these trees are naturally grown or landscape installations.

This may require a court injunction being that you have to enter the property.

I don't know if you have tried this, but since you get along with the fellow, get together with the other neighbors and offer to cover the cost of the removal of the problem trees and the current amenity value of said trees as determined by the average of a panle of three consulting arborists, one or tow of his choosing. Replacement material must be of culivars/species that will not grow to block the veiw in X number of years and can be maintained inperpetuity at the expence of the adjacent property owners with the veiw easements in a maner that will not cause a long term hazard due to decay formations.

(And yes, I'm not a lawyer, you would need one to write any agreement like that up. I have to mention that or smoeone else will )

One of these options could be coppice, where a tree is cut down to the ground on a regular cycle and allowed to regenerate from the stump.

I find that when dealling with this type of person, you have to leave them feeling that they got the better of the deal.

 

[Curtis James]

I'm not big on legalities, views or any of it. I'm big on trees. Isn't a giant tree just as much of a marvel as the bay? let them live!!

 

[rbtree]

I like trees too, Curtis. But here in the PNW, view issues abound...a given, as our views are unexcelled. So, this person's actions could well cost his neghbor huge amounts in lost property value. If he is found to be in violation, the trees must be removed, or worse, topped.



No doubt exists about whether this li'l redwood naturally generated:

 

[lucky]

I thought I'd revive this thread.
I have two redwood tree's planted around 60 feet apart. They are approximately ten years old. One flourishes while the other never grew well. The sickly tree finally died last fall(or so I thought). I have no idea why the one tree was unhealthy in the first place.
The past two weeks have been warm; the oaks, and the one redwoods as well as my potted seedlings have experienced growth. I decide it's time to pull out the dead redwood and replace it with something else but notice it too has some nice green chutes sprouting from the base. I thought this tree had died. JPS, anybody? What is going on with this tree? Thanks. John