Menlo Park’s heritage tree ordinance survived a test this week.
The City Council on Tuesday upheld the Environmental Quality Commission’s January decision that a tree at 318 Pope St. in The Willows neighborhood cannot be cut down.
The Cole family had appealed the commission’s decision, arguing that the 110-foot-tall coastal redwood tree in their backyard isn’t safe.
Backed by three arborists, they said the tree is so structurally damaged that large chunks could fall at any time, causing property damage and injuries to them and adjacent neighbors. Estimated to be 80 years old, the tree at an early age began growing upward in three segments instead of one, which are now possibly pushing against one another.
“Trees deemed dangerous should be removed, and the time to remove them is before they kill people and destroy homes,” said Isabelle Cole, who also wants to raze a one-story home on the lot and replace it with a two-story house.
The heritage tree does not stand in the path of the project, which the Planning Commission tabled in April pending the appeal’s outcome.
The council voted 2-1 Tuesday to deny the appeal. Councilwoman Catherine Carlton dissented, citing concerns about possible fatalities. Councilmen Rich Cline and Ray Mueller were absent.
City arborist Christian Bonner, who initially denied the tree removal permit application and was later backed by the Environmental Quality Commission, stood by his position Tuesday, noting it was backed by an independent arborist.
Scott Marshall, a member of the commission, said the Coles should have realized when they bought the property a year ago they would need to protect the tree.
“When you buy a house in Menlo Park, you sign documents that the city has a heritage tree ordinance,” Marshall said. “The resident should have known it was a heritage tree. If they were concerned, maybe they should not have bought the property.”
Gwyn Firth Murray, a neighbor, echoed Marshall’s comments in a recent posting to NextDoor.com.
“I would feel very differently about this if the owners wanting to cut down the tree had lived here for years and/or had planted the tree,” Firth Murray wrote. “But they are coming into the neighborhood, knowing full well that the tree was there when they bought the property. So why should they be permitted to remove a truly magnificent tree just because they feel like building a McMansion on their site?”
She added that the tree is one of the tallest in the neighborhood and a haven for hawks and eagles.
According to the city’s heritage tree ordinance, which is currently undergoing changes to possibly strengthen protections, residents who have heritage trees must preserve and maintain them in good health.
Heritage trees are defined as oak trees with a circumference of 31.4 inches or more at 54 inches above natural grade, or any other tree that has a circumference of 47.1 inches or more at the same height. The tree at 318 Pope is estimated to have a circumference of roughly 60 inches.
The fundamental difference of opinion between Bonner and the appellants’ arborists is he thinks the structural issue can be dealt with through aggressive pruning and better cabling of the tree. The other arborists argued that even with that, the tree could break apart any time with no outwardly apparent signs. Those arborists also suggested the mitigations would cost the family thousands of dollars, and Bonner’s assessment is only good for one year.
“Would you live in the house below it, would you let your children live in the house below it?,” said project arborist Kevin Kielty. “That’s the way we have to look at it.”
Peter Hadrovic, the neighbor closest to the tree, said he trusted Bonner’s analysis.
“We have three children who sleep in the path of where the tree would fail,” he said. “We believe that city staff has carefully reviewed the record (and) … we agree that the tree should stay.”
Before its vote, the council received assurances from legal counsel that if the tree did break and cause damages, the city would not be liable for damages.