Commission denies appeal to remove two redwoods after extensive evidence and expert testimony at 139 Easy Street
Loading...
Summary
After hearing an extensive staff report, excavation photos and arborist testimony, the commission denied an appeal seeking removal of two redwoods at 139 Easy Street, urging further mitigation and soil/root investigation before removal.
The Parks and Recreation Commission on April 8 denied an appeal to remove two mature coast redwoods at 139 Easy Street, concluding staff’s evaluation and available mitigation options did not yet justify removal.
Urban forest manager Russell Hanson presented staff findings that the two redwoods (each roughly 34 inches in diameter, about 60 feet tall) were generally healthy despite significant surface roots and that the city had not seen evidence proving removal was required to protect occupants or public safety. Hanson said staff’s review relied on photographs and an arborist report and recommended further targeted investigation: “Based off of that, and the fact that there was some root pruning that has already occurred, we did not find that the condition of the tree required its removal,” he said.
Homeowner representatives and an arborist urged removal. Appellant Blake Freeman and homeowner Jason Lindt showed photos of interior slab cracking and excavation that exposed roots; the consulting arborist, Ken Ohm of Bay Area Tree Specialist, said the exposed roots included large examples and argued the subterranean evidence supported removal. "These are Redwood roots... This is a major 12 to 15 inch root," the arborist said, describing the excavation and the risk of continued interior damage.
Commissioners probed competing explanations — expansive/clay soils and long-term drainage patterns were raised repeatedly — and repeatedly asked whether excavation and geotechnical work had been done. Neighbors and a Mauna Loma neighborhood representative also spoke to extensive surface roots and local soil conditions.
After deliberation the commission voted to deny the appeal and uphold staff’s determination that removal was not yet warranted; commissioners endorsed a path that emphasizes further technical work (e.g., hydro-excavation to expose and quantify roots, potential root-pruning trials, and drainage correction) and offered to help the property locate contractors for such work. Several commissioners said removal could be reconsidered if later tests show root impacts beyond what mitigation can address.
The decision preserves the two heritage trees while leaving a clear path for the owner to return with more detailed evidence or an engineered scheme for mitigation.
