The battle over the bunya bunya

The Barlow wants to remove a rare and potentially dangerous tree at its eastern entrance

The tall tree on the left in this photo is a 100-year-old bunya-bunya tree. This type of tree can live to be 600 years old. (Photo by Laura Hagar Rush)

For the last seven months, Sebastopol’s Design Review Board and the Barlow have been tussling over the fate of a single tree: a 100-year-old bunya bunya tree (Araucaria bidwillii, often called a Monkey Puzzle tree) on the corner of Sebastopol Avenue and Morris Street in the Barlow.

When the issue first came before the board on Nov. 28 of last year, the town’s arborist Becky Duckles supported its removal. She brought along one of its long, spikey fronds — it looked like a four-foot-long branch covered with short, very sharp spikes.

“These are all over the ground around the tree. And they’re very sharp, very pointy,” she said. “I cannot say that I know of any particular person that has been injured by them, but these are all over the ground, and they fall frequently.”

The tree also drops spikey, up-to-15-pound cones every few years. A recent one that fell destroyed part of a corrugated steel patio roof — so, yeah, not really something you’d want to fall your (or anyone else’s) head.

“Branches, of course, break; those things [the fronds] fall down. I don’t feel they’re particularly life threatening, but the cones definitely are,” said arborist Chip Sandborn, whose company does maintenance on a couple of other bunya bunya trees around the county. “They are quite impressive when they fall,” he said, referring to the heavy cones.

The Barlow was requesting the tree’s removal because a new tenant in the corner building formerly occupied by Seismic Brewing wanted to expand the patio and add a children’s play area. They felt that the tree would pose a hazard.

Discussing the removal and/or protection of this tree took up most of three Design Review Board meetings.

At the Nov. 28 meeting on this issue, the Design Review Board asked the Barlow to apply for a permit for the expanded patio/play area project and include the tree removal request with that.

Christine Level and several other board members said they’d approved trees for removal in the past, only to have construction projects fall through—and they didn’t want to see that happen in this case.

Level also said that taking out a 100-year old tree at the whim of a new restaurant—what with the short lifespans of most small businesses—would be a tragic mistake. Bunya bunya trees can live to be 600 years old.

Take two—hazardous and historic

The Barlow came back to the January 23 Design Review Board meeting, but they didn’t bring any plans with them.

Sebastopol’s Assistant City Planner John Jay explained why: “The applicant has requested that the tree removal permit be considered again solely in light of the continued safety issues of the tree for the current site conditions,” he said. “The applicant finds that these are a massive concern and prohibitive for procuring a tenant, and, as noted, the city’s arborist report did find that removal of this tree due to safety concerns is justified. So with that, the staff is recommending that the tree be removed with the appropriate conditions.”

But over the previous two months, the Design Review Board’s determination not to allow the removal of the tree seemed to have hardened.

Level argued that it was a historic tree—probably planted by Luther Burbank. (There was no evidence of this, but board members asked, “Who else would have planted such a thing around 100 years ago?”)

Instead they started discussing mitigations—putting bird netting in the tree itself to catch the falling fronds, for example, and having a tree service trim off all the cones before they grew too large.

Duckles, the city’s arborist, chimed in that, on further consideration, she had changed her mind about the tree removal and agreed with the Design Review Board that the danger could be mitigated.

Barlow Property Manager Jennifer Adametz argued that it wasn’t possible to fully mitigate the hazard.

“One of those large a very heavy pods [cones] did fall from the tree, and it…created substantial damage to a steel structure. So you can imagine if that was a human skull. I am not aware of any true human damage or injury from the tree, but we’re trying to prevent that, and we want to reduce the risk and liability,” she said, noting that the Barlow was “strictly just thinking about safety.”

“It is still in very close proximity to the existing patio. If you walk on that sidewalk there, it’s very close. And you can see those fronds,” she said, referring to fronds littering the ground. “We maintain it, but I don’t think there’s any full foolproof way to completely eliminate the risk.”

When it came time for comments from the board, it was clear the they weren’t persuaded.

“As a landscape architect, I’ve looked at plant material on a number of occasions sort of critically thinking should it stay or should it go?” board member Cary Bush said. “We have factors that we consider, and those factors are historic factors; sentimental factors; and there’s certainly an aesthetic factor…This tree is iconic, and it’s hard to justify its removal when it was there first.”

“I couldn’t agree with you more,” said board member Melissa Hanley. “I’m not indifferent to the damage—that thing’s dangerous,” she said referring to the spiky frond, “but I think that we can absolutely mitigate it through design in a more thoughtful way than just bluntly chopping down a tree that’s been here much longer than all of us and all of the buildings around it.”

Level agreed. “This tree could be as old as 140 years—here we are: little gnats. And when we’re gone and just dust in the breeze, that tree will still be there. It’s watched the entire history of the city of Sebastopol. I think we have an obligation to show some reverence toward nature and be stewards—and not build and maybe back off a little bit.”

She suggested that flooding was a far more serious danger in the Barlow than the bunya bunya tree.

Several people spoke in public comment in favor of saving the tree.

Board member Lynn Deedler made the motion to deny the Barlow’s application to remove the tree, Level seconded that, and the board unanimously supported that motion. Planning director Kari Svanstrom reminded them that the actual motion at this point was to ask staff to develop a resolution with findings for a denial that would come up for a final vote at the next meeting.

Take three…reasons to save the tree

Half of the Feb. 27 Design Review Board meeting was devoted to wordsmithing the legal findings that staff had put together to support the board’s denial of the Barlow’s tree removal application. The final findings that support the denial of the Barlow’s application to remove the tree are as follows:

1. That the application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15304, Class 4 which includes minor alterations to existing topographical features, such as the removal of a tree.

2. The tree is not diseased or structurally unsound and, as a result, is not likely to become a significant hazard to life or property within the next two year in that the City Arborist found that there is no sign of significant disease or structural damage to warrant the removal of this tree. 

3. The tree does not pose a likely foreseeable threat to life or property in that the City Arborist noted that with proper mitigation and tree pruning the tree would not be a threat to life or property. Additionally, the tree is a beloved community asset and a highly significant piece of Sebastopol history. Its removal would be detrimental to the entry of Sebastopol’s downtown core.

4. The property owner cannot demonstrate that there are unreasonably onerous recurring maintenance issues, which are deemed necessary for safety or protection of property. The property owner is responsible for providing documentation to support such a claim in that the applicant has not provided any proof or documentation to claim onerous reoccurring maintenance issues other than occasional pruning of dead limbs.

5. No situation exists or is proposed in which structures or improvements, including, but not limited to, building additions, second units, swimming pools, and solar energy systems, such as solar panels, cannot be reasonably designed or altered to avoid the need for tree removal.

6. The tree has not matured to such an extent that it is determined to be out of scale with adjacent structures and utilities, or with other landscape features in that the tree was in place before this building and the Barlow were constructed. The removal of this tree would severely degrade the landscape presence of this gateway corner of Sebastopol.

Hanley made a motion to approve the findings of denial as amended, and Deedler seconded the motion. The vote passed with three in favor, one abstention, and two absent.

The Barlow has appealed the Design Review Board’s decision, and there will be a public hearing on the tree removal at the May 21 city council meeting.