Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board Meeting - June 26, 2025

Note: The meeting minutes indicate a date of June 25, 2025, while the provided metadata states June 26, 2025. This summary uses the date from the metadata as instructed.

The Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board met on June 26, 2025, at 7:03 PM in the Maple Room at 201 South Rengstorff Ave, Mountain View, CA. The meeting was conducted with a virtual component. The commission voted on two heritage tree removal appeals for the same property at 1158 Cuesta Drive. The meeting adjourned at 8:57 PM.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval (June 11, 2025): Approved unanimously (5-0) with a motion by Vice Chair Mitchner and second by Commissioner Filios.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Oral Communications (non-agenda): Bruce England (Wisman Station Drive, member of Green Spaces Mountain View) spoke about the meeting process, expressed concern over the number of tree removals in the city, and urged the commission to complete the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan to streamline future hearings.

• Public Comment on 5.1 (Modesto Ash): Leslie Friedman thanked staff for the tree health presentation and noted that living things are rarely symmetrical, praising the tree's health.

• Public Comment on 5.2 (Liquidambar):

  • Leslie Friedman: Argued that the builders should have considered the tree when purchasing the property and that the design is not the best fit; urged preservation of the tree.
  • Rashmi (online): Expressed support for the appeal, emphasizing the tree's benefits (canopy, cleaner air, habitat) and the importance of the Heritage Tree Ordinance. She shared personal experience with a replacement tree that struggled to thrive.
  • Alton (appellant, resident): Described the tree as magnificent and an asset to Cuesta Drive, noting that construction can be adjusted around trees, as seen in other cities. He urged the commission to preserve the tree.

Discussion Items

5.1 Heritage Tree Removal Application Appeal – 1158 Cuesta Drive (Modesto Ash)

• Urban Forest Manager Russell Hansen presented the staff report. The Modesto Ash had a 40-inch diameter, 40-foot height, and 30-foot canopy. Staff assessed tree health as good and structure as fair. The applicant (property owner/developer) had listed reasons for removal (poor health, end of lifespan, poor structure, lack of growth space), but staff concluded the tree could be retained and impacts from construction mitigated.
• The appellant (Oscar Hernandez, representing Aero Homes) withdrew the appeal, stating they intend to retain the tree and will shift the house further away to protect it.
• The commission voted unanimously (5-0) to note in the minutes that the appellant withdrew the appeal and intends to retain the tree, so no further action was needed.

5.2 Heritage Tree Removal Application Appeal – 1158 Cuesta Drive (Liquidambar)

• Staff report: The Liquidambar had a 40-inch diameter, 60-foot height, and 20+ foot canopy; health and structure were good. The applicant cited poor structure, lack of grow space, necessity for construction, and proximity to structures causing damage. staff found that removal was necessary to construct improvements given the modular design (state-approved, difficult to modify) and the driveway location. Issues included sidewalk lifting, sewer root intrusion, and proximity to two other heritage trees (coast live oak and camphor tree).

• Key positions:

  • Appellant (Alton): Advocated for preserving the tree, stating that adjustments to construction plans are always possible.
  • Applicant (Oscar Hernandez, Aero Homes): Explained that the modular home design is fixed and cannot be altered; the driveway location must be either in the current spot (impacting the oak and camphor) or on the right side (impacting the Liquidambar). They noted sewer line and water meter conflicts.
  • Commission discussion: Several commissioners expressed difficulty in choosing between trees. Commissioner Bryant noted the Liquidambar is a larger, more significant tree for the street canopy than the oak and camphor. Commissioner Sommer argued that the removal criteria for “necessity to construct improvements” was not met, as the lot could be developed with a different design that accommodates the tree. Commissioner Filios noted that staff rarely recommends removal, suggesting the situation is serious. Commissioner Mitchner initially leaned toward upholding staff but later became open to preserving the tree pending a variance process. Commissioner Davis emphasized the community interest and the need to protect heritage trees.

• Vote: The commission voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the appeal and overturn staff’s recommendation for removal of the Liquidambar, on the grounds that the criteria under MVCC 32.35(a)(2) (necessity of removal to construct improvements) had not been met, and no other criteria were met. The motion was made by Commissioner Sommer and seconded by Commissioner Bryant.

Key Outcomes

• Modesto Ash (5.1): Appeal withdrawn; tree retained. Motion to note withdrawal passed 5-0.
• Liquidambar (5.2): Appeal approved; staff recommendation to remove the tree overturned. The commission found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for removal. The tree will be preserved. Vote 5-0.
• Future Meetings: The commission will reconvene in August (tentatively August 13) and September (tentatively September 10 or 13) to discuss the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan.
• Staff/Commission Updates: Commissioner Bryant raised concerns about unhealthy trees at Centennial Plaza and dying roses in traffic circles. Urban Forest Manager Hansen noted that replanting is planned for the fall and that the city is evaluating alternatives for the traffic circles.