Atherton planning commission affirms $6,700 penalty for heritage-tree damage at 79 Mesa

The Atherton Planning Commission on Dec. 10 affirmed a $6,700 code-enforcement penalty for damage to a heritage tree at 79 Mesa.

Town staff described the case as the first time the commission has heard penalty appeals that had previously gone to a hearing officer. According to the staff report, the penalty was assessed after trenching damaged roots of a 24-inch-diameter heritage tree. Town code requires certain arborist inspections and limits on root cutting; staff said those procedures were not followed.

Mike Kubecky, project manager for Springs Construction, told the commission that PG&E held the original permit and that Springs hired the trenching subcontractor to advance on-site work. “PG and E did receive this permit, but according to the Atherton tree protection procedures manual, no permits will be issued until [the town] arborist has inspected the site,” Kubecky said, adding that Springs is willing to pay part of the penalty but disputed being the sole responsible party.

Lisa Marie Daley, code enforcement officer, said the permits PG&E pulled covered pole and right-of-way work; the trenching that damaged roots occurred on private property and no building permit for that on-property trenching had been finalized. Daley said the town reissued the notice of violation to Springs at the contractor’s request after PG&E did not respond to invoicing.

The town arborist explained the review process: private-arborist reports are required and staff performs an independent appraisal. The arborist said photographs show numerous roots cut and that the town treated the event as damage rather than immediate failure; she added that, if the tree dies within three years, the town could revisit penalties. “If the tree dies within 3 years, then we would go back and do a penalty of two times,” the arborist said.

Commissioners debated but noted the commission lacks authority to apportion fines between private parties; civil remedies between contractor and utility are separate from the commission’s enforcement authority. A motion to affirm the notice of violation and the $6,700 penalty was moved, seconded and passed by roll-call vote (five affirmative votes). The penalty is to be paid as directed in the notice of violation.

The commission’s action affirms town enforcement; any private dispute about cost-sharing between Springs Construction and PG&E remains a civil matter outside the commission’s remedy.

What happens next: the penalty stands as affirmed; staff advised the commission that enforcement and any follow-up (including possible penalty doubling if the tree dies) will proceed according to code.