Looking at the arborist's report, the reason for chopping down the majority of the redwood trees seems to be improving the golf course. Although a few of the trees are unhealthy, I think the majority of the trees are as healthy as any other redwoods in Menlo Park.

Redwood trees are helping this city breath, replacing these giants with new trees is ridiculous. The golfers should learn to deal with the shade -- they probably already have, golf is about adapting. This golf club might just want new members. I say NO--we do not have to loose our urban forest every time someone wants to improve their bottom line.

I hope the city staff does not find in favor of this project.

I wonder whether the hidden purpose here is to redesign the golf course? Menlo Country Club is also request from Woodside a similar request to redesign the links.

The trees in the photo are far from GIANTS and are less than 15-20 years old. Heavy crows ruin their tops. They are on private property and should be allowed to be removed. They grow back fast and are truly NIMBY, and some tree huggers should stay in theirs with their comments.

Why do we have an heritage tree oridinance if we are going to allow tree after tree to be removed? Especially, just to replace them with something else. Accept what's there!

Heritage trees are important and belong to everyone in our communities. We all reap benefits from their existence as do our local wildlife whose survival is linked to these trees.
Redwoods can live up to 2,000 years so I have my doubts that they are seriously unhealthy. The arborist cites some are "unhealthy" and this could be true considering all the chemicals on the golf course or our local air....And how are trees "hazardous" and to whom? golfers?
For starters, I think Menlo Park should get more than one arborist's opinion. The trees may not need to be taken down and instead given regular spraying treatments and trimming. SH golf club may have been
neglecting them intentionally.

An old adage comes strongly to mind: "Money makes the world go around!" I vote that these trees should stay and the golfers learn to adapt.

The city should demand to know what the second phase is before making any decision on the first phase requests.
In any case redwoods is what this area was all about before we all showed up. Keep the trees.
Instead of golfers looking out for hazards it turns out the golfers are the hazards - to the environment.
It's time for the city commissions and the council to have show some balls (pun intended) and keep the trees.

lol. they are TREES

cut them down and replace them with something more useful, like lamp posts

The purpose of replacing the trees certainly is to improve the golf course by substituting healthy, more appropriate trees for the overcrowded, unhealthy redwoods that inhibit grass growth by imposing too much winter shade. The article points out that there will be a substantial net increase in the tree count. The proposal should be approved.

Of course redwoods inhibit grass growth - because they are majestic and create shady areas. Hopefully being majestic won't become a death sentence.

Why not save the best of these redwoods and replace only the truly unhealthy ones with other species.

[Post removed. Please discuss the topic. Don't attack other posters.]

There is an implication by some posters that the trees in question were there before the golf course. Having played the golf course back in the early sixties when the club first opened, the trees were first planted by the club as a natural barrier between fairways and have grown too large for their intended purpose.

Inasmuch as the trees, which were planted circa 1960, are of no historical significance and are being replaced by slower growing pacific dogwoods and purple leaf plums, there should be no objection.
While playing the course back in the early sixties, I would also add there was no Highway 280 which came about a few years later and now runs parallel to the 12th fairway. Had the laws that exist now been in force back in 1961, I wonder whether 280 would ever have been built.

Thomas's post points out an issue with respect to heritage tree ordinances that has always bothered me; and does so in this instance. I certainly agree that in an urban setting such as ours, we need rules requiring that when trees are removed, new trees need to be planted (perhaps elsewhere on the property) to provide the related benefits. However, I've always believed that if someone (indvidual, business or even country club) can show that the tree was planted by the property owner, then it isn't a "heritage" tree--that designation should apply to nature's trees--tree, it is a plant that belongs to the property owner's . If they want to cut it down, it should be their right to do so.

The trees that are in the crosshairs were planted by the course - they are "heritage" only insofar as they have grown. They were not naturally occuring and their removal will make the whole course ecosystem function much, much better.