Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Trees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves removal appeal for a Victorian box at 2424 Whitney Drive
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Commission approved a homeowner’s appeal to remove a heritage‑tree‑eligible Victorian box at 2424 Whitney Drive after reviewing staff reports and two independent arborist opinions that the tree is in decline and structurally compromised.
The Mountain View Parks and Recreation Commission on June 11 voted to grant an appeal and allow removal of one heritage-sized Victorian box at 2424 Whitney Drive, after hearing staff analysis and testimony from two consulting arborists who recommended removal.
City urban forest manager Russell Hanson presented staff’s inspection, describing the tree as a Pitosporum undulatum (Victorian box) roughly 16 inches in diameter, about 30 feet tall with a canopy of roughly 20–30 feet. Hanson said the canopy was thin, the site lacked supplemental irrigation and there was a significant cavity at the trunk base. He said staff probed and sounded the trunk and did not find advanced decay extending throughout the trunk, and concluded the tree could possibly be preserved with supplemental watering, corrective pruning and soil improvements. Staff therefore initially denied the removal application.
The property owners said they had hired arborists and showed photos and a video that, they and a consulting arborist said, demonstrate a large internal cavity at the root flare, active insect activity and progressive decline. Consultant arborist Hugo Angel Morales (present on the call) told the commission he recommended removal because the tree is "in very, very poor condition" and is close to the end of its useful life; he recommended replacement planting outside the immediate structure zone.
Commissioners debated the technical evidence, the tree’s size and condition and the Heritage Tree ordinance’s intent to preserve significant trees. Several commissioners said the tree barely met the diameter threshold for heritage protection and that the species and current condition diverged from the ordinance’s expectation of a "majestic" specimen. Others urged first trying relatively simple remediation steps such as supplemental watering, mulching and limited pruning.
After discussion, the commission approved the appellant’s request to remove the tree. The motion to approve the appeal cited multiple removal criteria in the municipal code, including the tree’s condition relative to its expected lifespan; aesthetic and structural qualities; and good-forestry considerations including the number of healthy trees a parcel can support and the wisdom of replacing a failing specimen. The motion passed on a recorded roll call vote, with the commissioners present voting yes.
The commission’s action allows the property owner to remove the tree; the owner and commissioners discussed replacing the tree in a different location on the property and noted replacement species and planting and establishment responsibilities will be addressed per city rules.
