Commission overturns staff: Liquid amber at 1158 Cuesta Drive to be retained

The Parks and Recreation Commission and Urban Forestry Board voted on June 25 to uphold an appeal and deny the removal of a heritage liquid amber at 1158 Cuesta Drive, overturning staff’s finding that removal was necessary to construct proposed improvements.

Russell Hansen, urban forest manager for the City of Mountain View, told commissioners the liquid amber “has approximately a 40 inch diameter when measured at 54 inches above grade. We estimated the height of the tree to be about 60 feet and considered about 20 to maybe a little bit more, feet of canopy spread.” Hansen said staff’s on-site review found the tree to be in “good to fair, health and structure,” but flagged conflicts including lifted sidewalk, root intrusion into a sewer lateral, and a planned modular driveway that would run through the tree’s protection area.

The applicant and developer, represented by Oscar Hernandez of Arrow Homes and Stefan Bittner, said the modular design and driveway layout made it “very difficult” to preserve the tree. Hernandez said the existing driveway was already damaged by nearby roots and that shifting the driveway or house to avoid the tree would require variances or would impact other heritage trees on the lot.

The property appellant and several public speakers urged the commission to preserve the tree. A resident who identified only as Mountain said, “this tree...is magnificent, and it's an asset to Cuesta Drive.” Public commenters Leslie Freeman and Rashmi also urged preservation, citing canopy, climate and neighborhood character.

After extended commissioner questioning—covering sidewalk condition, sewer repair options, root depth, tree tolerance for root pruning, and the feasibility of planning variances—commissioners debated whether the removal criteria in Mountain View City Code §32.35(2) (necessity to construct improvements) had been met. Several commissioners said the modular, state-approved building design complicated on-site changes but noted that preserving the tree would better serve neighborhood canopy and community character.

A motion to approve the appeal and overturn staff’s recommendation passed by recorded vote (Commissioner Bryant — yes; Commissioner Filios — yes; Commissioner Summer — yes; Vice Chair Mishner — yes; Chair Davis — yes), thereby denying the removal permit for the liquid amber. The commission’s motion stated the criteria for removal under MVCC §32.35(2) regarding necessity to construct improvements “has not been met,” and that “no other criteria for removal under MVCC §32.35 have been met.”

The commission directed that the decision be recorded in the minutes. Staff and the applicant may pursue other administrative remedies (for example, a planning variance) independent of the commission’s action; the commission did not itself grant a variance or instruct the planning department to approve one.

The vote preserves the tree for the short term; any future construction that would affect the tree will require compliance with the heritage-tree ordinance and any required permits or approvals.