ASRB sends 3100 Road story-pole item to staff for tree-health review

At a meeting on Monday, Sept. 8, the Woodside Architectural and Site Review Board voted to forward an item about story poles and proposed tree removals at 3100 Road to staff for further review of tree health. The board’s action followed a brief applicant update confirming that story poles had been installed and that staff and the applicant had received no neighbor correspondence. Architect Adam Biddle said, “The story poles were installed as required. The thorough neighbor outreach was recorded and happened prior to the initial hearing. We have not heard anything from any of the neighbors.” Board members and staff discussed several trees shown on the project plans. Staff member Sage referred to the arborist evaluation, saying that Tree 70 is “listed as a poor structural rate rating and recommended for removal.” Staff described Trees 69 and 70 as reported for health concerns and said Tree 71 lies within the footprint of a proposed building and therefore is proposed for removal. Why it matters: the board used the consent-agenda pull to confirm neighbor outreach, visibility of proposed structures, and whether trees adjacent to the story poles are healthy and required to remain. Several members emphasized preserving trees where feasible and asked staff to confirm whether trimming or other mitigation could avoid removal. Details and action: the board made a motion to forward the item to staff with direction to “review the quality and integrity of the tree, determine if it is in fact in poor health.” The motion was seconded and carried; the board recorded affirmative votes and noted Member Delgavio’s recusal from this item. Chair Lindsey, Vice Chair Palmer, Member Mittelman and Member Sullivan voted yes. The motion instructed staff to return with a determination rather than adopting any final permit decision at the meeting. Additional context: the applicant walked the site with the story poles in place and said the poles are “pretty low profile” and not highly visible from surrounding properties. Staff explained that when a tree is within a proposed building footprint it may be proposed for removal; when a tree is adjacent to proposed work, trimming or arborist review may allow retention. Next steps: staff will assess the cited trees (numbers 69, 70 and 71 per the applicant’s materials and arborist notes), confirm the arborist ratings and recommended mitigations, and report back to the board. No permit was granted or denied at this meeting; the board’s action was limited to referring the matter for staff review.