NVR Logo
Yountville 300-year-old oak tree to be saved
Council votes 3-2 to preserve, trim tree
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Save and Share Share
MapA 300-year-old valley oak has conquered younger adversaries in a political scuffle in Yountville, as the Yountville Town Council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to let the fragile old tree stand despite concerns about safety and legal liability.

The tree’s fate has been the subject of debate in Yountville for eight months. Some neighbors and town officials contend the tree’s fading health poses risks to nearby residences and passers-by on a walking trail. Others say the majestic oak, perhaps the oldest of its kind in the valley and home to bee hives and owls, should be preserved.
Tuesday’s vote was a “stay of execution,” according to tree advocate and town resident Alan Tenscher. While the tree will stand, the town will prune limbs, regularly monitor the tree’s health and create fences and signs to block pedestrians, including students at the adjacent Yountville Elementary School, from walking under the tree.

The tree sits on the western edge of Hopper Creek, which was named for Gold Rush-era pioneer Charles Hopper. Hopper arrived in the Napa Valley in the 1840s, 130 years or so after the tree began to grow.
Councilmembers John Dunbar, Marjorie Mohler and Lewis Chilton voted to preserve the tree, while Mayor Cynthia Saucerman and Councilman Bill Dutton preferred removing it. The majority decision adopted the recommendation of town staff and an ad hoc tree committee that included residents, councilmembers and arborist Bill Pramuk.

Pramuk said he will trim the tree to reduce the “weight and windsail” of limbs that might snap off in a storm or become too heavy. “We’ll be pruning to reduce the length of the outer limbs and tops, trying to not disfigure the tree. At this stage, there’s no plan to disrupt any bee hives or anything terribly significant; just the larger, outer branches that are four-to-six inches in diameter, possibly a couple of larger branches,” he said.
Pramuk allowed that the “tree could fail in a strange or unexpected way,” but said he felt confident that the policy the town adopted addresses property damage concerns.

Chilton, seen as the swing vote going into Tuesday’s meeting, said the safety of school children and others has been the top concern. “The deciding factor was, ‘Can we come up with a solution that saves the tree and answers safety concerns?’ The answer was ‘yes.’”

Chilton said the town must do more to convince people to keep off the path and out of harm’s way. “We need additional fencing right behind the elementary school to make it more difficult to go through that area,” he said.

Mayor Saucerman said she appreciated all the work that the ad hoc committee and staff put into the solution, but said she believes the tree should be removed. “This guy could do some serious damage if it fell,” she said.

Saucerman noted that some $5 million in claims have been filed against Sonoma County after a tree along Bennett Valley Road in Glen Ellen fell earlier this year and killed a  5-year-old boy. The family of the boy says the county did too little to monitor the health of nearby trees. “In my opinion, the town shouldn’t assume that risk,” Saucerman said.

She also said it will be hard to keep people from walking up the dry bed of Hopper Creek or otherwise approaching the tree. “Kids are going to go in no matter what you do, that’s what kids do.”

Tenscher said he hopes that through educational signs and the  fact that the town is saving such a special specimen the tree will be seen more as an asset than a liability. If Yountville is going to enjoy a reputation as a “green town” with the environmentally-friendly features of the new Bardessono Inn and French Laundry Chef Thomas Keller’s organic garden, he said it is important to “venerate and respect our native environment and our natural resources.”



View 300-year-old tree saved in a larger map
42 comment(s)

Joe wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:20 PM:

" If this tree poses a threat of injuring people or damaging property than it should be cut down. There are many things around that are that old. Many rocks that have been around for much longer, the river, the ground right beneath the tree, Mt St. Helena. Just leave the stump for people to look at. The tree could be cut into a lot of firewood. I used to cut trees down for a job. One time I cut one down and it was full of chipmunks. Many of them died. I felt bad, but this stuff happens all the time. It's better than someones child being killed. "

JMB wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:34 PM:

" I am so agreeing with Joe. It's just a tree that's lived a good life. I have had 200+ year old trees fall on my property, and across a city road. I got tired of having to pay for the clean-up. Get rid of it now, people could have firewood, and no hazards like trees falling near a house, car, or people. Cut it down! "

kg wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:46 PM:

" I think a 300 year old oak tree should be respected for it beauty and its age. It should be a great focal point for the town. I wish others could see the beauty of the mighty oak. RESPECT "

kg wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:58 PM:

" I think a 300 year old oak tree should be respected for its beauty and grace. What a great life it has had so far. I can just imagine all the people back 200 years ago that needed and used that tree for shade, shelter. Maybe it could be another great focal point for the town. "

Napa_Citizen wrote on Jul 22, 2009 2:59 PM:

" Well then we better cut ALL the trees down, because a it could fall down and hurt someone.

If its not sick, rotten, or dead let it L I V E "

Joe wrote on Jul 22, 2009 3:04 PM:

" kg,
the fact that it is 300 years old makes it a hazard. Many trees rot from the inside then fall. There are many other oak trees out there to appreciate for their beauty. I would think people would care more if it was a younger tree that was being cut down. This tree will fall sometime soon even if it is wathed after, so why not just cut it down now and not spend money trying to prevent something that will eventually happen anyway? "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 22, 2009 3:38 PM:

" Joe
Longs property manager cut down a 300 yo oak on Soscal Ave. with a hole in it. The arborist said they usually do get these holes inside and its the structure of the shell thats important. He figured that tree could have lasted another 100 years. So sorry if i dont buy your blanket statement.
Destroying nature for mere "landscaping" is boggus. "

napaoldguy wrote on Jul 22, 2009 3:45 PM:

" Not the tree lovers response I expected. Let it live,it's a thing of beauty. "

Joe wrote on Jul 22, 2009 4:38 PM:

" The "shell" of the tree is not what is keeping the tree standing. It is the wood in the middle of the tree. The middle of the tree is called the holding wood. If it rots the tree could easily fall over in heavy winds. People get too emotional about trees. They are a renuable resource. Trees don't live forever. What will happen if a school bus full of children is crushed by this tree one day? Will it be worth letting this tree stay then. This is obviously a hazard tree or this wouldn't be an issue. It is irresponsible to not cut it down. Why is it worse to cut down an old decomposing tree compared to cutting down a young healthy tree? "

antipc wrote on Jul 22, 2009 5:45 PM:

" Euthanize it, pronto! "

misfit wrote on Jul 22, 2009 6:55 PM:

" What makes anyone think that that tree has less right to live than anyone else. It was here long before us. As long as steps are taken to monitor the situation, what's the problem?
Should we start offing our elderly too? "

Paddy wrote on Jul 22, 2009 7:44 PM:

" Chipmunks Joe? Don't kill the chipmunks Joe. Let the tree live, it was here long before any our kind Joe. Like you say "...stuff happens all the time". You'll have a much better chance rolling your pickup truck, and breaking your head open then having someone injured by this tree that's been around since 1700. "

reason-ator wrote on Jul 22, 2009 9:33 PM:

" It sounds like everyone understands and respects the age and value of this majestic tree.

That's good.

So move the houses. It's done all the time. "

indycal300 wrote on Jul 22, 2009 10:01 PM:

" Joe you have made very good points, and you are speaking the truth. The tree has lived its life and is now a danger to the public. 5th generation, what is stronger, a solid stick or a hollow stick? I am sorry but your argument just does not hold up, so just arguing for arguments sake is absolutley rediculous. "

suze wrote on Jul 22, 2009 10:20 PM:

" A three hundred year old oak is a magnificent thing. Think of all the indians, bears, travellers and settlers who have sat around under it through the centuries.
Trees have to be maintained, particularly if they are very large.

Regular monitoring, pruning and some cabling will usually keep them as safe as anything is.
I'm very grateful for the attitudes that are keeping this old tree around for a bit longer. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 7:37 AM:

" indycal300 and joe, please forgive me.

I didn't realize you guys were arborists or structrual engineers. Silly me.

Oh by the way Pipe is stronger than a solid rod, just for argument sake. I'm sure you dont care about the engineering. "

NapaNana wrote on Jul 23, 2009 7:45 AM:

" Alright......I love trees just as much as any tree hugging actavist...BUT....when there is such serious doubt about the safety of such a old "Majestic Oak"......I wonder why there should even be a debate about it.
Sure it is 300 years old. Misfit and suze.......will you be singing the same song not if but when it falls? And not if but when someone gets hurt?
Do you really think that some little kids skipping along to school......or playing around is really going to read that sign? And WHEN the tree cuts loose... what will ya all say then? That is is the kids fault for not reading the sign?
It is just like posting a beware of dog sign. You KNOW there is a possibility of danger. You may as well say...."We know someone is going to get hurt.....but we warned you so it is on you....not me". Simply unreal! "

LCC Yountville wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:45 AM:

" An Ad-Hoc Committee of Citizens and Town Council members was formed last December as a means to save an ancient heritage oak from removal. Over the last 7 months the Ad-Hoc Committee worked to develop viable solutions to save this tree by closing the path within the fall zone, and monitoring and pruning per Town arborist recommendations.
This tree is considered the oldest and most magnificent Valley Oak in our Napa Valley and has lived along Hopper Creek for 300 years. This tree is a living history that creates a connection to the many epochs through which it has flourished: the Native Americans- Pomo, Wappo and Caymus, the grizzly bear, cougar and elk, the early settlers, the Town's founding, and the more recent and much more private passages in the lives of those, young and old, living today.
This tree is a focal point to nature for us and an irreplaceable habitat for many wild creatures. A vital ecosystem is sustained in its' roots, branches, trunk, acorns, and shade. It provides shelter and sustenance for raptors, owls, heron, songbirds, squirrels and honeybees. It stabilizes the river bank from erosion and shades the creek for fish, tadpoles, crayfish and salamanders, protecting the riparian environment and seasonal aquatic life.
Environmental scientist for the Department of Fish and Game quoted: ‘In all honesty, 1000 little trees would not adequately mitigate for the loss of a tree of that age and stature and I strongly encourage you to take a close look at all other alternatives’
to removal.

For these various reasons, our community has made every effort to protect this tree, so that it may continue to stand among us. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:45 AM:

" It may or maynot go, the "experts" seem to think its ok with care.

Bottom line, what ever happened to educating our kids about natural beauty and concerns and danger?
How did the farm kids of the past survive? It was eveyday life to enjoy but be aware!

People get hurt everyday by everthing. Does that mean we need to destroy all trees of certain species, over a certain age, over a certain height, then we move to the other dangers animals, vehicles, then people.

Its much easier for us to teach our kids how to beaware and handle sitiuations they might encounter in life, and learn to enjoy the beauty nature can offer.

We're fools to think we can child proof the world, but were also irresponsible to forget we need to teach our children to be aware, responsible, and self reliant. They are not in our sight all the time and should learn the skills to survive. Nature is beautiful, but its all around us and its not safe under those certain cercumstances anywhere.

Thats why we have experts in different fields to help us decide. "

heavyg wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:46 AM:

" What great timing. Many people who where at the Vets home on Monday watching the Joe D tourny were witness to the danger of falling limbs from an old oak tree. Three cars were toatled and two other were damaged. If the game had ended ten minutes earlier the owners of these vehicals could have been chrushed along with thier vehicals. This tree has lived beyond its years it is a danger cut it down now "

reneefannin wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:48 AM:

" After seeing that tree fall on 29 a couple of weeks ago, I am all for cutting this tree down. It sits very close to the school baseball field and playground as well as many residential homes. If it went completely over, it would do some serious damage. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 23, 2009 9:03 AM:

" This tree is a living thing put on earth by God. You have a far greater chance of injury driving to work. The guy cutting the tree has a far greater chance of injury or death cutting the tree.

If you're so afraid of life it's unclear to me how you live at all. It's sickening how humanity has taken upon itself to pass judgement on nature and out of fear destroys anything that might cause any kind of harm regardless of it's true value.

The benefits that this tree has bestowed upon God's creatures, including humanity, is immeasurable over it's 300 year life time. Treat it with the respect it deserves.

If you're afraid of it, stay away from it. Don't presume you speak for anyone, or anything, else.

Nice job Yountville Town Council. You did the Godly thing. "

xgrapecrusher wrote on Jul 23, 2009 12:17 PM:

" Joe,

Have you ever been to the redwoods in northern Cal? Some of those trees are more than 2,000 years old. Most of them are hollow. If you're afraid of the old oak don't go near it. "

lupmart wrote on Jul 23, 2009 12:33 PM:

" I'm not passionate about this tree being "from God" or a "vital ecosystem".

However, a lot of people seem to not even read the basics of this article. Sounds to me like they've saved a tree but have done so by keeping people far away from it. How can something be the focal point of town if everyone is kept so far away because its dangerous?

Hopefully they have kept people far away, because as its been pointed out its pretty close to the elementary school. "

Joe wrote on Jul 23, 2009 1:04 PM:

" Big deal that the tree is 300 years old. There are many other things older than that to remember that Indian tribes were once here. I don't see how anyone could believe that a tree was put here by some "God" whatever that even means. The tree has lived a long life. I'm all for leaving it there and letting it fall on it's own. I'm just against spending taxpayers money to try and make it less of a threat. "

Joe wrote on Jul 23, 2009 1:38 PM:

" xgrapercrusher, yes I have been to the northern California Redwoods. It's a shame those trees weren't cut down before they were rotten if they are rotten. That would have been good wood that could have been used to build houses, or heat houses. Instead they just rotted away and created more fuel to be ignited during a wildfire. Now it's even too late to safely cut those rotten trees down because there is no holding wood to direct which way the tree will fall. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Jul 23, 2009 2:04 PM:

" “In my opinion, the town shouldn’t assume that risk,” Saucerman said.
Napa did nothing about the poor lady with the mini van a few years ago, when a huge branch fell on her ride...
The were like "um sorry"... Nice attitude.. "

xgrapecrusher wrote on Jul 23, 2009 3:14 PM:

" Joe,

I get that you hate trees. Why would you go to the redwoods If you hate trees so much? Hmmmm? "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 23, 2009 3:22 PM:

" Joe your right, we do need to improve our educational system. "

Joe wrote on Jul 23, 2009 4:20 PM:

" I don't hate trees. I love trees. People are just ridiculous how they view trees. If a tree is old and rotting it should be cut down and used for something instead of letting it rot away from the inside, then fall and damage something. People don't get all worked up when a ugly tree that makes a mess and gets sap all over the place. But when it's a Oak or Redwood they feel like the tree somehow has feelings. I loved when my job was to cut down trees. We saved trees and houses by cutting certain ones down. Tree's are renueable. It's like a cornfield. You pick the corn, plow the field and plant more for the next year. The world needs wood to build things so why not cut it down and use the wood instead of letting it rot from the inside then fall and crush a school bus full of kids? "

milkman wrote on Jul 23, 2009 6:27 PM:

" bottom line, public safety > tree, cut it down. Would you let your children play in the shade the tree provides? "

antipc wrote on Jul 23, 2009 7:01 PM:

" The three council members & all the folks lobbying to save the tree need to sign, record, & file a liability affidavit with the city taking full responsibility for the tree. This would leave the city (ie, taxpayers) exonerated from financial responsibility & negligence claims.

This exact same scenario played out up valley in the early 80's. A young man was partially paralyzed for life & the county lost the lawsuit. However all this could have been avoided except for a small group of selfish ideologues that had to be able to enjoy a single dying tree. The millions of others in the valley just wouldn't due.

Or maybe we should apply the same logic to drunk drivers.... we know it's a risk but one we're willing to take as long as someone else pays for it. Spend a little time in a spinal trauma unit, you'll leave with a different perspective, I can assure you. "

barefoot wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:44 PM:

" I will agree, we need to improve our educational system. It's you're right, not your right. I think that if a tree reaches a certain age; (older than the humans around it) it should be grandfathered in. After all, it was there first. There would be no danger if there were no humans. Being that the tree was there first, the humans are at fault. Let's put this into perspective...If you are hiking in a canyon, and a rock falls on you and kills you, who is responsible? Stuff happens, right? Same with a 300 year old tree. Just deal with it. You have no right to determine it's destiny. It's destiny was determined way before yours. "

suze wrote on Jul 23, 2009 8:49 PM:

" Maybe all you oak tree hating scaredy cats should just stay away from the oak! The same goes for the local kids, they have plenty of other places to walk and play.
When I was a kid we ran with scissors, rode our bikes and ponies with no helmets, climbed to the top of big trees and roller skated without protection anywhere. Many of us are still alive to tell the tale.

If you are worried a tree will fall on you, then maybe you had just better stay home all day - just in case.

ps - LLC Yountville, I really enjoyed your post, thank you. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 23, 2009 10:37 PM:

" Now we have to draw up liability affidavits to enjoys a tree!? Wow. It's incredible how afraid people are of trees.

Whether a tree falls on you, a shark attacks you, you crash your car, an airplane falls out of the sky, a lion attacks you in a zoo, you fall down the stairs and break your neck, it doesn't matter what power you think you have over the inevitable. Stop running scared and believing that by removing every tree, shark, plane, train, bus and car it will save you. It won't.

Wo walk under the trees without fear, swim in the oceans without fear, live life without fear. Get over yourselves. "

Joe wrote on Jul 23, 2009 11:09 PM:

" Paddy,
Many people aren't scared of certain things they are just being cautious because you only have one life to live. Once you die you most likely just don't exist anymore, and that's it. No afterlife, nothing better afterward or worse. People are killed by trees that have fallen on them. I know someone who died by a tree falling naturally on them. So when someone knows a tree is in danger of falling it should be removed just like you would remove a rattlesnake from inside your home if there was one. I believe religeous people take for granted how great life hear on Earth is by believing that something better is afterwards. To someone who believes in an afterlife they might not care if they are killed by this tree because they think something good will come from it. I just hope it doesn't end up killing someone some day. "

antipc wrote on Jul 24, 2009 7:17 AM:

" Paddy, do you not see the hypocrisy in this? Government mandates safety measures in so many aspects of our lives (seat belts, bicycle helmets, etc, ad nauseam). So why are they allowed to risk public safety over a "dying" inanimate object? "

reneefannin wrote on Jul 24, 2009 9:39 AM:

" In the past 24 hours, it has come to my attention that people feel very strongly about the tree. I do not have these strong feelings for this one tree. I love nature, the mountains and am a hiker yet still do not have the feelings for a single tree that I have heard people express since I made the comment that I would prefer to see the tree cut down. After hearing so many of my friends and neighbors profess their very strong emotions for the tree, I do think that the town council probably did the right thing in agreeing to compromise and leave it up. I personally may never understand the love for a single tree that I have heard professed, but I do respect it and I respect the dilligence that the town gave to researching before acting as well. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 24, 2009 10:00 AM:

" antipc - I do indeed see the irony in doing their right thing and allowing this tree to stand and the idiocity of all of the laws passed to save us from ourselves. "

antipc wrote on Jul 24, 2009 7:07 PM:

" So why place human freedom below that of a tree.

I can't understand trying to humanize a tree.

Do you really believe the liability insurer is going to pay for damages, injuries, or death as a result of the inevitable? You & I both know the city will pay because it would have been avoidable. When the taxpayers see the bill for such a decision they will elect legislators that impound more of our freedoms. "

funnyme wrote on Jul 26, 2009 8:15 AM:

" The fence blocking the path 'is beautiful'...just like watching lions at the zoo! "

mtc wrote on Jul 26, 2009 12:34 PM:

" As someone who was close to the debate over this tree, I found myself being pulled in both directions. There were good, sound arguements being made on both sides of the issue. But ultimately, for me, it boiled down to just one thing... the tree is really magnificent, and stood its ground while many others fell nearby in what was the strangest coincidence in my recent memory. Was "Mother Nature" telling us something?! Oooo, spooky :) "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy