Atherton commission approves removal of two oak trees, allows three maples removed despite arborist caution

The Atherton Planning Commission on May 28 approved removal of two coast live oaks at 18 Faxon Forest Road and, after extended discussion, also voted to allow removal of three Trident maples that staff had recommended keeping.

Town Planner Britney Bendix told the commission staff split on the request: planning staff recommended approval of two coast live oaks but opposed removing the three Trident maples; Town Arborist Sally recommended approval of only one oak. "Sally's recommendation is to only approve 1 coast live oak," Bendix said during the staff presentation.

The commission approved two separate motions. The first motion approved removal of the two coast live oaks following testimony and written reports showing foundation and hardscape impacts around one of the trees. After debate that ranged over previous site work and the owners' tree stewardship, commissioners then approved removal of the three Trident maples despite staff and arborist recommendations to deny those removals.

Property owner representatives said the removals respond to a long-running landscape renovation and foundation concerns. The owner told commissioners the property includes multiple heritage trees across three parcels the family owns and that they plan extensive replacement planting. "We love them. That's why we live in Atherton," the owner said during public comment, characterizing the request as part of a careful redesign rather than an attempt to clear the lot for development.

Sally, the town arborist, reported the two coast live oaks and the three Trident maples were in fair to good health. For one coast live oak she had accepted engineering documentation showing foundation impacts and therefore supported removal; she did not find evidence of foundation damage for the other trees and recommended against removing the maples. Planning staff nevertheless proposed a compromise (approve the oaks, deny the maples); the commission later moved to approve all five removals.

As a condition of approval, the commission required replacement plantings and specific tree-protection measures. The certificate of approval lists replacement plantings including ornamental cherries or Japanese maples, multi‑trunk maples, redwoods and a pine, with installation and monitoring requirements to be carried out under town conditions and periodic arborist reporting.

Commissioners framed their votes with attention to the property owners' stewardship history and the overall tree canopy on the combined parcels. Vice Chair Polito and other commissioners noted the site already contains a large number of heritage trees and that the applicants had engaged arborists and structural engineers before seeking removal permits.

The commission recorded roll-call votes for the motions and approved both actions. The approvals include standard mitigation and replacement conditions to be enforced through the town's permitting process.

The action resolves a contested application that came after recent hardscape and landscape work on the site; the property owner and project team said they will begin replacement planting after permit conditions are finalized.