Like most homeowners, Claremont residents Richard and Carol Suter want the best for their safety and property. Since moving into their home on Indiana Avenue a few months ago they have become increasingly concerned about a nearly 60-foot tall Canary Island Pine city tree that towers 29 feet from their house. In January they asked the city to have the tree removed, citing health and safety concerns, and offered to foot the bill.

“The property owner has requested that the tree be removed due to the potential for failure during a high wind event,” read a staff report. “The owner states that he and his wife are elderly, disabled individuals subject to protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and feels that they are at special risk. Concerns over the possibility of the tree striking their house if it were to fail causes them to lose sleep, leading to impaired balance. The resident further states that a fall resulting from sleep deprivation may in their case have serious consequences.”

The nearly 60-foot tall Canary Island pine tree Claremont residents Richard and Carol Suter contend poses a health and safety risk to their home on Indiana Drive. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

Despite an emotional plea from the Suters, on Tuesday the Claremont City Council voted 4-1 to deny their request. Council member Jed Leano voted in favor of the request. The decision upholds previous guidance from Claremont’s Tree Committee and the Community and Human Services Commission that argued the tree couldn’t be removed per the city’s tree policies and guidelines manual.

“Staff did go out and inspect the tree in January,” Claremont Community Services Manager Cari Dillman said. “They found it to be healthy, stable, free from any pests, disease or structural deficiencies. And at that time, staff denied the request for removal because it didn’t meet the requirements of staff’s approval for removal.”

The Suters appealed that initial verdict in early March, spurring meetings that would see the issue go before the tree committee and human services commission — both of which sided with the tree guidelines. The City Council was tasked to weigh in following an appeal of the commission’s April 1 decision to deny the removal.

Claremont Landscape Maintenance Supervisor Richard Hecker said the tree was assessed recently. “Tree S-2 has a diameter at breast height of approximately 29 inches and a height of 45-60 feet,” read the assessment. “The tree is in good health with no observable structural defects. The tree was pruned in January 2020 and February 2024 as part of routine grid trimming. The approximate value of the tree is $14,740.”

On Tuesday, the homeowners argued that trees, whether healthy or not, can still blow over during extreme wind events. A staff report noted five of 14 Canary Island on Indiana Avenue either fell during or were removed following the devastating January 2022 windstorm. Last year’s wind event spared Canary Island pine trees on Indiana Avenue, and the 33 on Michigan Drive. Corrective pruning was required on both street in 2025.

Richard Suter said his wife has “thin” bones, and the city’s decisions to deny the request go against the tree manual’s call for “balancing the benefits of the urban forest with safety of the public is a priority of the city.”

“What we’re asking you is to look at the manual,” he said. “It keeps talking about balance, balancing welfare of our trees with our safety, the safety of the residents. It came to a vote, do we spare this one tree out of 25,100 in our urban forest at the genuine medical risk of two elderly, disabled residents? … What did the committees do? They voted in favor of one of 25,100 trees, and the continued risk of serious medically verifiable risk of our residents. We’re asking you to restore the balance that the manual insists on.”

Claremont City Council member Corey Calaycay at Tuesday’s meeting. Courier photo/Andrew Alonzo

Dillman asserted the city could not remove the tree in question due to tree guidelines.

“We as staff cannot removal unless the tree is dead, in a state of advanced decline, or hazardous,” Dillman said. “At this time the tree doesn’t meet any of those criteria.”

Leano, the lone vote in favor of the Suters’ appeal, explained his position.

“Reading the tree policy, it is clear that we are given the capacity to weigh public safety benefits along with the preservation of our trees,” Leano said. “And that capacity to weigh those benefits weighs heavily in favor of the equities presented by the applicant tonight.”

Claremont Human Services Commission chair Brisa Sifuentes said the tree is healthy and explained how commissioners arrived at their respective conclusions.

“It’s not to say we wouldn’t consider someone’s health issues if something was to be considered, but there was a lot what ifs,” Sifuentes said. “What if there was wind? What if the tree got knocked over by the wind? What if they lost sleep? What if they fell? So, it was just a little bit too far off to assume or guess that something was going to happen.”

Council member Corey Calaycay clarified the thinking behind his vote to deny the appeal.

“I do want to clarify though when we keep talking about risk, and it’s insensitive that you’re not concerned about somebody’s risk,” Calaycay said. “It’s not as simple as that because life doesn’t work that way… How do you assess what’s really balanced? And in the end, if you start making those kinds of decisions on every single thing that comes before you, you’ll end up with a community that doesn’t look [like] what people enjoy about Claremont, our trees and the beauty of our community.”