Mountain View board denies appeal to remove heritage Deodar cedar at 1119 Solana Drive

The Urban Forestry Board denied an appeal to remove a heritage Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) at 1119 Solana Drive, voting to uphold staff’s decision after a public hearing and deliberation on Sept. 10.

Board staff had recommended denying removal after an onsite assessment found the tree in generally good health, with no confirmed structural defects or disease that would meet the city’s heritage‑tree removal criteria. "Staff's evaluation did not find that the condition of the tree required its removal," said Russell Hansen, urban forestry manager, during the hearing.

The appellant, property owner Sylvie (surname not provided), and a neighbor, Andrew Kuo of 1127 Solana Drive, said the tree causes ongoing nuisance and property impacts. Sylvie told the board the tree is about 18 inches from her garage and that in December 2024 work on an adjacent driveway cut a large root. She said the tree requires professional pruning roughly every three years at about $2,000 per visit and that sap and needle drop have increased recently.

Neighbor Andrew Kuo described effects on his property: "We can't even park our cars anymore on the garage or on the driveway," he said, adding that sap and needles have stained a newly replaced driveway and that proximity to his balcony leaves branches "literally touchable." Kuo said he and Sylvie have identified replacement tree planting sites should removal be approved.

An ISA‑certified arborist, Caitlin Shelton of Andersen Tree Care, provided a professional assessment and photos. Shelton said she observed a large root cut from driveway work (approximately 8 inches in diameter), sap leakage and insect entrance holes at the trunk on the compression side, and some crown reduction from past pruning. "I do not have any concerns that this tree will fall over in the next 1 to 3 months under normal circumstances," Shelton said, but she noted that extreme wind or storm events could increase failure risk given prior root loss.

Hansen described the staff inspection: the tree measures about a 31‑inch diameter at breast height, sits roughly 18 inches from the corner of the garage, showed limited root uplift (about three quarters of an inch to an inch at a concrete pad) and had evidence of a single large root removed near the adjacent driveway. Staff concluded these conditions could be addressed with corrective pruning and mitigation and did not satisfy removal criteria in the city's Heritage Tree Ordinance.

During deliberations commissioners cited consistency with past appeals and the ordinance's intent to protect the urban canopy. Commissioners noted inconvenience experienced by residents but said evidence did not show a present structural failure or public‑safety level hazard. Commissioner Michener recused themself because of a long‑standing personal relationship with the property owner; the board recorded the motion to deny the appeal and to uphold the staff decision as carried by the voting members present.

The board’s resolution (title read and attached to the meeting memorandum) denies the removal request and requires no immediate remedial order to remove the tree. The appellant and neighbor said they and the arborist will monitor the tree and that both property owners have identified sites for replacement trees if removal is ever authorized.

The commission’s decision preserves the heritage tree while leaving open routine monitoring and potential future action if new, documented conditions—such as new pest identification, significant root loss, or demonstrable structural failure—are presented to staff and the board.

Votes at a glance: motion to deny appeal and uphold staff decision — carried by the voting members present; Commissioner Michener recused.