Planning commission upholds permit to remove 35-inch coast live oak at 830 Menlo Oaks Drive

The San Mateo County Planning Commission on Jan. 22, 2025 voted 3–1 to deny an appeal and uphold the community development director’s decision to grant a significant tree removal permit for a 35‑inch coast live oak at 830 Menlo Oaks Drive (County file PLN 2023‑00336).

The decision overturns the appellant’s request to reverse the June 5, 2024 approval. Planning staff had recommended upholding the director’s approval after multiple reviews of arborist reports and revisions to the application.

The appeal, filed June 20, 2024, challenged the director’s findings and argued the permit was granted on an insufficient record. Appellant John Danforth, who identified himself as a Menlo Oaks neighbor and member of Menlo Oaks Tree Advocates, told the commission the house on the parcel had been “a complete scrape” and that the owner had flexibility to relocate the garage. Danforth said, “This was a complete scrape. I watched the house torn to being torn down... It was a completely new house. So there was flexibility here to put the garage away from the tree.” He urged the commission to deny the permit, contending the two required findings in the approval letter did not support removal.

Angela Chavez, the county project planner, reviewed the application history for the commission. Chavez said the original application, submitted in October 2023, proposed removal of eight trees and was revised after county arborist review to a single tree removal in March 2024. She summarized staff’s review and wrote in the staff presentation that, after evaluating the arborist reports, site photos and public comments, “it is our recommendation that the planning commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the community development director to approve the removal of the 35 inch Coast Live Oak Tree under county file number PLN 2023‑00336.”

Applicant designer Lisa Wellman and owner Sanam Sabar told the commission the tree presented safety and insurance concerns and that the current design restored a garage adjacent to the tree. Wellman said, “This house is not a scrape. It is a very large addition,” and described structural work needed to support a second story. Owner Sanam Sabar told the commission that two trees on the property fell in February 2023, rendering portions of the house uninhabitable, and that insurance difficulty and a leaning tree informed the decision to seek removal. Sabar said the fallen trees made the house uninhabitable and described challenges obtaining homeowners insurance.

Staff record and the staff report document site photographs, arborist reviews, and public comment. Chavez told the commission the subject tree’s canopy comprises roughly 1,813 square feet and that the parcel’s overall canopy was about 14,922 square feet; staff noted the subject tree is about 53 feet from the front property line and that the application was processed under the county’s significant tree ordinance provisions in effect at the time of application.

During deliberations, commissioners split on whether the tree’s lean, prior tree failures, and insurance risk outweighed the appellant’s arguments about alternatives. Commissioner Hansen voted nay; Commissioners Gupta, Ramirez and Chair Serrano Quan voted to deny the appeal. Commissioner Ramirez made the motion to deny the appeal and uphold the director’s approval; Commissioner Gupta seconded. The motion carried 3–1.

Decision and next steps: The commission’s action upholds the director’s June 5, 2024 permit decision to remove the 35‑inch coast live oak. The staff report references findings and conditions in Attachment A of the staff report; the commission’s action was to deny the appeal and leave the existing approval intact.