Mountain View Urban Forestry Board Meeting - October 30, 2025
Mountain View Urban Forestry Board Meeting - October 30, 2025
The Urban Forestry Board held a special meeting on October 30, 2025, primarily to hear an appeal of a Heritage Tree Removal Permit for 151 Calderon Avenue (Eaves Creekside apartment complex). The meeting also approved the 2026 meeting schedule with an earlier start time.
Consent Calendar
- The board unanimously approved the minutes from the prior meeting.
Public Comments & Testimony
- No oral communications on non-agenda items were made at the start.
- During the heritage tree appeal, multiple residents and community members testified. Appellants and residents expressed strong opposition to the removal of eight heritage trees, citing concerns about environmental impacts (erosion, air quality, shade), community well-being, and lack of transparency from the property owner (AvalonBay). Residents from Eaves Creekside, members of Greenspace Mountain View, and others urged the board to deny the permit or delay the decision pending further studies. A former resident spoke in favor of the project, noting the need for housing and that if built elsewhere, environmental impacts might occur elsewhere. Several speakers also criticized the high appeal fee and called for revisions to the city ordinance.
Discussion Items
Heritage Tree Appeal (Item 5.1)
- Staff Presentation: Urban Forestry Manager Russell Hanson explained that the application proposed removing eight heritage trees (four sycamores/London plane trees and four camphor trees) to construct six detached ADUs. Staff recommended denial of the appeal and approval of the removal permit, citing state housing law (California Government Code section 66317) that limits local discretion to delay or deny ADU permits. City Attorney Diana Fazelli clarified that state law supersedes local tree ordinances, and staff had no basis to deny the permit.
- Appellants' Arguments: First appellant Rebecca Gracken (Stanford PhD student) argued the trees provide essential shade, erosion control, noise and air pollution barriers, and community space. She raised concerns about geotechnical and flood risks near Stevens Creek and noted the city's Biodiversity Plan. Second appellant Cole Son emphasized that alternatives exist on the property (e.g., converting the leasing office) and that the city failed to balance all factors required by the Heritage Tree Ordinance. He argued that the ADU law does not preclude objective review of safety issues like erosion and flooding.
- Commissioner Questions & Legal Clarifications: Commissioners questioned staff and legal counsel about the interplay between state and local law. The city attorney reiterated that state law mandates ministerial approval for ADUs, and the tree permit cannot be used to delay that. Commissioners expressed frustration that the appeal process might be futile but acknowledged the legal constraints. There was discussion about the possibility of refunding the appeal fee and updating the ordinance to address such conflicts.
- Public Comment: Many speakers echoed the appellants' concerns, emphasizing the trees' ecological and community value. Some called for the board to take a stand and challenge state law, while others noted the need for housing and argued the project would proceed anyway.
2026 Meeting Schedule (Item 5.2)
- Staff presented the proposed schedule, including a change to 6:00 p.m. start time (from 7:00 p.m.) to begin meetings earlier. Commissioners discussed adjusting the November meeting date to avoid conflict with Veterans Day (November 11). The schedule was approved with the November meeting moved to November 4, 2026.
Key Outcomes
- Heritage Tree Appeal: The board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal and uphold staff's approval of the Heritage Tree Removal Permit. The resolution was amended to state that the permit is required to comply with state housing law, rather than meeting local ordinance criteria. The board also requested that city staff consider updating the Heritage Tree Ordinance to address similar conflicts in the future, and that consideration be given to refunding part of the appeal fee.
- 2026 Meeting Schedule: Approved unanimously, with meetings starting at 6:00 p.m. and the November 11 meeting moved to November 4.
Meeting Transcript
Voted on those minutes. We had uh we provided input on the biodiversity plan. But do uh commissioners have any questions about minutes? No. Hearing none, are there any public comments on the minutes for our prior meeting? Seeing none, um I'll move that we approve the minutes. Second, may we have a vote? Bryant, yes. Yes, commissioner summer, yes, vice chairman. Yes, Chair Davis. Yes. Okay, um, on to item five. Oh no, I'm sorry, on uh item four, which is oral communications from the public. And this part of the agenda is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any item that's not on the agenda, so not the heritage tree appeal or our 2026 schedule, but any other items. Um speakers are limited to three minutes, and the state laws prohibit the commission from acting on non-agenda items. Are there any individuals wishing to address the commission on non-agenda items? Anyone online? Seeing none, we will move on to item 5.1, uh, which is the heritage tree appeal. And uh, somewhat complicated, or there's a lot of process. Um, here's how to go down. Staff will present a report. Um, since we have multiple appellants, the first appellant will have 10 minutes to present, then the second appellate will have 10 minutes to speak. The applicant will have up to 10 minutes to speak, and then the commission will have an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters, including the staff, the appellant, and uh, do we have to um then we'll open it up to public comment? So uh typically allow up to three minutes for that, close public comment, then we will uh then staff will have an additional two minutes to address any final comments. The applicant will have an additional two minutes if they wish to make any final comments, as will appellate one and two, and then the commission will uh deliberate, make a motion and potentially vote. So that's how it will happen. And with that, we'll turn it over to staff for presentation, please. All right, thank you, Commissioners. Russell Hanson, urban forestry manager within community services department. Um, this evening we're here to present uh the appeal uh information for 150 Rome 151 Calderon Avenue. Um, we'll go there. Um so in this case, uh Heritage Tree Removal permit application to remove eight heritage trees was submitted in connection with the building permit number 259390. Um the reason on the application listed was removal of eight heritage trees to accommodate the ADUs proposed under the building permit application to construct six detached ADUs. Um what we have here is a site overview map. Um you can see kind of starting down in the lower right-hand corner, tree number one is offset. Um, first and foremost, I want to be clear these locations are approximate. Um, there was not a formal drawing submitted to us that had both pieces. So I did my best to scale it and figure out approximate locations, and so these are the approximate locations. I can't tell you that they're exactly where they're going to be, but you can see some of the conflicts regardless. So tree number one, kind of that lower right-hand side you can see um at the corner of one of the ADUs as well as number four, number three and two are attached, kind of overlaying uh second ADU, and then tree number five that is out closer to the parking lot. Those red and blue lines that you see are power and water utilities, etc. And so the concern there is is that they were going to be doing root pruning or otherwise. Um tree number six, seven, and eight are all similar. They're either right adjacent to the unit inside of the unit footprint or over the utilities, but that is a very narrow approximately 10 to 15 foot path there between the ADU and the parking lot as it sits. If you get a little bit closer look, tree number one is a sycamore. Kind of a decent structure, fairly good health, no real major issues with it. Tree number two on the right, similar condition, has some other issues with the bark. You can just barely make out in the pictures where it's a little more white. Don't think that's anything significant or otherwise, but overall again, health, condition, structure all appeared to be fair. Tree number three, another sycamore, similar condition, a little bit over the parking lot and some of the mailboxes, etc.
openpublica.com