Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Tree Removal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves removal of five heritage trees and two TPZ exceptions for 76 Meloney Lane redevelopment
Summary
After staff analysis, applicant testimony, and neighbor outreach, the Planning Commission approved removal of five heritage trees (including tree #45) and granted two tree protection zone exceptions to allow driveway widening for fire access at 76 Meloney Lane, with replacement planting required.
Senior Planner Tom Ford told the Commission that the 76 Meloney Lane project proposes demolishing an existing residence and building a 7,038‑square‑foot house with basement, a detached ADU, pool, cabana and expanded driveway for fire access on a steep (≈27°) site. Staff described 31 heritage trees on or adjacent to the property and recommended removing four of the applicant‑requested five trees, denying removal for tree #45, and approving two 3x TPZ exceptions for driveway widening with specific conditions.
Tom Ford explained design constraints tied to the lot’s slope, average natural grade (ANG) calculations and the need to accommodate Menlo Fire’s access and turnaround requirements. He noted the applicant had already removed six dead or hazardous trees under staff authority, proposed six new 48‑inch box oak replacement trees and had iteratively redesigned the plan several times.
Property owner Bharat Kumar presented the applicant’s case and requested removal of tree #45. "We respectfully wanted to request approving removing tree number 45," Kumar said, describing tree #45 as a 21‑inch DBH oak in "fair" condition with reduced vigor and structural defects and leaning about 15–20°. He said retaining the tree would force another major redesign that could take two to four months and argued replacement planting along the perimeter would provide better screening for neighbors.
Town arborist Sally said she had approved many removals and conditions but explained that tree #45 was outside the buildable area and in generally good condition; she told commissioners that for her to be concerned about a lean it would need to be 30–40°, not the 15–20° the applicant cited. She recommended approval for several other removals and imposed conditions for TPZ exceptions, including arborist supervision.
Commissioners weighed the arborist’s technical judgment against site constraints, the applicant’s redesign history and neighbors’ stated support. Several commissioners noted the lot’s difficulty, the applicant’s efforts to reduce impacts and the proposed replacement planting. One commissioner said the replacement 48‑inch box oaks would provide better screening than the tree to be removed.
A commissioner moved to approve heritage tree removals for trees 13, 15, 51, 29 and 45 and to approve TPZ exception requests for trees 37 and 58; the motion was seconded and passed. The approvals include conditions set out in the staff report and certificate of approval, including construction‑phase protections and replacement planting.
