Trees pegged for removal, pruning

Having lived in a home on Leona Street west of the park for some 40 years, David Webb said he has enjoyed having the open space of the park. He noted, however, the challenges of cleaning up debris from its eucalyptus trees and concerns he has had about whether they may fall in strong winds.

“We do love the park, but there are some things about it that are very distracting,” he said.

Lodged last year by park neighbors, concerns similar to Webb’s drove city officials to study the risk the trees posed to those living near or visiting the park, explained city arborist Matthew Fried. A consultant hired last year assessed the trees’ health and proximity to homes or paths and pegged 16 of them for removal while recommending some 13 others be considered for further study and removal, said Fried.

In studying the 13 trees pegged for further study and reviewing the report written by the consultant, Fried and another tree specialist determined at least 12 additional trees could be very costly for the city to maintain. The 28 trees Fried and the consultants recommended for removal are clustered around the paved path extending from the northwest corner of the park to its center and along the park’s southern border. They also recommended stump grinding and replacement of the 28 trees to be removed as well as pruning 18 others at an estimated cost of $241,000.

Though Fried acknowledged some reports of the dangers of eucalyptus trees can exaggerate their risks, he said those studying them also weighed the benefits of replacing each one removed with either a coast live or valley oak trees, boosting the park’s tree diversity and the concerns residents have had about their potential to fall or lose limbs in windy or stormy conditions.

“To have trees and to appreciate trees is to accept some degree of risk,” he said.

As someone who regularly visits the park with his children, Virgil Thompson wondered whether the trees Fried recommended for removal could be pruned instead. Thompson said the park’s tree canopy is unique in providing shade and natural beauty for those who use it, and was also concerned about access during removal.

“We love the eucalyptus, we love the way that they look, we love the shade of them,” he said. “It’s a special place that looks beautiful [and] that we really enjoy using. It would just be such a shame … to see it destroyed.”

Acknowledging the trees are a community asset, Commissioner Amourence Lee said she thought work to prune and remove some of them was warranted to reduce risk. Because Fried had noted it could take 25 years for the replacement trees to reach maturity, Lee wondered if removing groups of trees over several years could help park visitors adjust to the change.

“I do feel like 25 years is a long time to wait and so I am interested in a phasing approach,” she said. “But I do want to know whether that would actually reduce cost.”

Fried said extending the project timeline could increase the cost of maintaining replacement trees and require wildlife surveys each time work is done at the site, which could also boost costs.

“You’re going to be in a very similar spot regardless of whether you do it now or whether you do it in five years,” he said.

Fried said he could explore grouping the trees into two removal phases or scaling the project back when the City Council reviews the project in a study session set for the fall.

Though the city has some $520,000 dedicated to tree pruning projects, there are no funds dedicated specifically to the larger tree removal project and city officials would need to request funds for the project from the City Council, said Parks and Recreation Director Sheila Canzian. For her part, Canzian said she also shares a love of the park and was dismayed by the idea of seeing nearly half of its eucalyptus trees removed, noting a phased approach taking into account the trees’ risk could help residents adjust to the change.

“For me, the notion of removing all 28 trees at one time is very disheartening,” she said.

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Note to readers: the image originally with this article is incorrect. It has been updated to show the correct park in San Mateo.